# Lakers and Blazers talking Felton?



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

> A league source has informed CSNNW.com that the Los Angeles Lakers and the Portland Trail Blazers have had “exploratory talks” regarding Trail Blazers' guard Raymond Felton.
> 
> According to the source, talks have been ongoing for weeks and it is likely to involve Lakers' guard Steve Blake in the deal.


http://www.csnnw.com/pages/landing3...s-discussing-Fel=1&blockID=663104&feedID=5212

If the Lakers could get Felton while dumping Blake, I think they would be very interested. Not sure why the Blazers would do that though.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

How's Felton doing this season?


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Not playing well, but I think the Lakers would still be interested in dumping Blake's contract for an expiring.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Basel said:


> How's Felton doing this season?


Worse than Blake.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Blake is a big reason the Lakers are starting to turn the corner, look at their record since he came back from injury - w(hy)tf would anyone be beefing about Steve Blake right now

and Felton (who is in McMillan's doghouse) is have a horrible season

sanity people, we're not upgrading Blake, we're upgrading over the cripple with the walker who starts the games - Blake is and should continue to be a very nice contributor off our bench

Felton shouldnt cost us Blake, he should cost us the Mavs first and a slice of the TPE


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

I can get not wanting Felton, but where is this love for Blake coming from? The dude is a scrub. Look at who and where we played with him injured. That's why we were losing. He's better than Fish but come on.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

I say go for Deron Williams, we can send Blake to NJ straight up.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Yeah, Blake is a pretty important player for us. I'd rather deal a first for Felton and move Fisher out of the rotation.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

I would not deal a 1st for Felton he is a average PG that is almost always out of shape plus he is a FA next year.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

I have watched Felton quite a bit this season and he's playing terrible. He's a better player than Blake for sure but Blake has chemistry with the guys and is playing much better this season than he did last season. I'd stand pat on the Felton thing. 

I just say sign Arenas on the cheap and see what he has its a low cost no harm move. This sorta move might just alter the chemistry and might get us less production not more.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

e-monk said:


> Blake is a big reason the Lakers are starting to turn the corner, look at their record since he came back from injury - w(hy)tf would anyone be beefing about Steve Blake right now
> 
> and Felton (who is in McMillan's doghouse) is have a horrible season
> 
> ...


I think the Lakers record with Blake playing is something like 18 and 7.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> I can get not wanting Felton, but where is this love for Blake coming from? The dude is a scrub. Look at who and where we played with him injured. That's why we were losing. He's better than Fish but come on.


Blake is doing exactly what he was signed to do - Felton right now is not playing as well as Blake is and he costs twice as much

Ideally whatever we do we wind up with a starting pg AND blake coming off the bench AND fish shoved further down (or out of) the rotation


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Jamel Irief said:


> I think the Lakers record with Blake playing is something like 18 and 7.


so they're 5 and 7 without him, this just underlines how much better we could be with an actual competent starting PG


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

e-monk said:


> Blake is doing exactly what he was signed to do - Felton right now is not playing as well as Blake is and he costs twice as much
> 
> Ideally whatever we do we wind up with a starting pg AND blake coming off the bench AND fish shoved further down (or out of) the rotation


You are claiming that a guy scoring 6 points a game on horrible percentages is responsible for a turnaround?

And you have it completely backwards on Felton. The Lakers would do a Blake deal for Felton to save money.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> You are claiming that a guy scoring 6 points a game on horrible percentages is responsible for a turnaround?


I'm claiming he's had a hand in it yes, do you not understand how the game works? do you not watch the games and see how the team is more effective offensively when he is on the floor running it than when Fish is at the helm? 

now this is a function as much of Fisher sucking as Blake being competent mind you and that's all Im claiming is that he's competent and that we need that especially in the new offense that requires an actual PG who can run the pick and roll and initiate the offense early and generally do more than just stand in the corner and boink treys



> And you have it completely backwards on Felton. The Lakers would do a Blake deal for Felton to save money.


by going away next year, yeah I get that - it sucks 

I dont like being a Clippers fan and it will be one of the signs that we all might as well get used to a 'new fiscal attitude' with the Lakers if they start doing deals to bring in guys like Felton and Beasley planning to let them walk just to flush cap tax off future payroll seasons


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

and btw Blake's horrible %s are 5 points higher than Felton's


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

I've said throughout the thread the deal would be about money, not about Felton's ability. And dumping contracts of mediocre players is not a terrible thing. It's not like players of Blake's caliber are hard to find.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

I rather have Sessions.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> I've said throughout the thread the deal would be about money, not about Felton's ability. And dumping contracts of mediocre players is not a terrible thing. It's not like players of Blake's caliber are hard to find.


Why are you so interested in saving Buss money all the time? Are you his wife?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Game3525 said:


> I rather have Sessions.


I rank the PG's we've been rumored to get in this order-

1) Calderon
2) Sessions
3) Felton
4) Arenas


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Why are you so interested in saving Buss money all the time? Are you his wife?


I'm looking at it from a realistic point of view. You might not like it but the owners want to save money, especially with the new CBA.

That aside I'm not a fan of using our assets to overpay role players.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

3 billion dollars on top of the highest ticket prices in the league and they lead in merchandise sales as well - they can afford to pay a little more than other teams can

they should go after Sessions (and re-sign/extend him) - they wont draft anyone better with the Mavs pick anyway - the guy is only 25 has room to grow and comes at the right price (Calderon will cost too much both in trade value and in salary) I could see him being a piece of the puzzle into the post Kobe era


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> I'm looking at it from a realistic point of view. You might not like it but the owners want to save money, especially with the new CBA.
> 
> That aside I'm not a fan of using our assets to overpay role players.


Of course I don't like it. Am I supposed to care whether a guy make 100 million dollars profit versus 92 million dollars? What I don't understand is why you are seemingly rooting for the owners to save money.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

I saw Sessions the other night against the Wizards I was not impressed really he's just another guy. Nothing special doesn;t do anything well. Calderon can shoot and pass but is a horrible defender. 

Felton to me is just a NO he looks to have gotten further out of shape and lost a good bit of confidence. 

Arenas I just view as a guard not a pg answer he could be a scoring option off the bench a vet scoring option.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Of course I don't like it. Am I supposed to care whether a guy make 100 million dollars profit versus 92 million dollars? What I don't understand is why you are seemingly rooting for the owners to save money.


Rooting for the owners to save money? I realize that the owners want to save money. That leads to them doing things like trading a draft pick just to dump Sasha. I was against that signing while I'm sure you were telling everybody that it wouldn't hurt anything. Same with the Walton signing. Why don't you bump those threads?

I'd prefer the Lakers spend their money on actual talent and keep the scrubs to short contracts because I know that money plays a factor. I'd rather have them deal Blake for Felton than have to trade a draft pick just to get rid of him.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

jazzy1 said:


> *I saw Sessions the other night against the Wizards I was not impressed really he's just another guy.* Nothing special doesn;t do anything well. Calderon can shoot and pass but is a horrible defender.
> 
> Felton to me is just a NO he looks to have gotten further out of shape and lost a good bit of confidence.
> 
> Arenas I just view as a guard not a pg answer he could be a scoring option off the bench a vet scoring option.


He is much better then anything we have at the moment.

They really need to suck it up and just hand over the first, chances are you aren't going to get a better player then Sessions with the first round pick anyway.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Rooting for the owners to save money? I realize that the owners want to save money. That leads to them doing things like trading a draft pick just to dump Sasha. I was against that signing while I'm sure you were telling everybody that it wouldn't hurt anything. Same with the Walton signing. Why don't you bump those threads?


You aren't making any sense. I'm against the Lakers trying to save money and then you brought up them dumping Sasha, a move I was against since all it did was save them money. Why don't you bump that thread?

Signing Sasha and Luke only hurt Buss' wallet. Lakers were drastically over the cap without those two, and if it costs him an extra 20 million I don't care.



> I'd prefer the Lakers spend their money on actual talent and keep the scrubs to short contracts because I know that money plays a factor. I'd rather have them deal Blake for Felton than have to trade a draft pick just to get rid of him.


I'm repeating myself here, but I know money is a factor. Doesn't mean I have to like it and doesn't mean I'll give the thumbs up to a Blake salary dump.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> You aren't making any sense. I'm against the Lakers trying to save money and then you brought up them dumping Sasha, a move I was against since all it did was save them money. Why don't you bump that thread?
> 
> Signing Sasha and Luke only hurt Buss' wallet. Lakers were drastically over the cap without those two, and if it costs him an extra 20 million I don't care.


You were in favor of them signing him even though it was overpaying because you said it wouldn't hurt anything except the bottom line. Turns out that to get rid of his contract they had to trade a draft pick. 

If nothing else they are taking up roster spots that could be used on better players.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> You were in favor of them signing him even though it was overpaying because you said it wouldn't hurt anything except the bottom line. Turns out that to get rid of his contract they had to trade a draft pick.


It does only hurt the bottom line. They dumped him to help the bottom line. I'm not in favor of them looking out for the bottom line when they will be drastically profitable either way.


> If nothing else they are taking up roster spots that could be used on better players.


Like who? Gerald Green? He might be better than Luke now but not Sasha. Hell Sasha might still be our backup SG if he was here.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> It does only hurt the bottom line. They dumped him to help the bottom line. I'm not in favor of them looking out for the bottom line when they will be drastically profitable either way.
> 
> 
> Like who? Gerald Green? He might be better than Luke now but not Sasha. Hell Sasha might still be our backup SG if he was here.


It didn't just hurt the bottom line it cost us a draft pick too. You can pretend like money doesn't matter, or argue that it shouldn't, but it does. I choose to look at things with that in mind.

As for who we could have picked up, in those threads I mentioned Pietrus instead of Luke and JR Smith instead of Sasha.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> It didn't just hurt the bottom line it cost us a draft pick too. You can pretend like money doesn't matter, or argue that it shouldn't, but it does. I choose to look at things with that in mind.


I'm sorry I didn't realize there was a draft pick penalty for signing Sasha. I thought the trade that sent him to New Jersey was seperate transaction the Lakers made to... you know.... help the bottom line?

Which being against it is consistent with my stance that I don't favor transactions to help the bottom line.



> As for who we could have picked up, in those threads I mentioned Pietrus instead of Luke and JR Smith instead of Sasha.


They could of still picked them up if both parties were willing. That's an issue of talent mismanagement, not overpaying role players hurting the team.

If Blake is keeping us from getting Felton who cares?


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I'm sorry I didn't realize there was a draft pick penalty for signing Sasha. I thought the trade that sent him to New Jersey was seperate transaction the Lakers made to... you know.... help the bottom line?
> 
> Which being against it is consistent with my stance that I don't favor transactions to help the bottom line.


Some of us can realize that money matters and the Lakers make roster decisions based on it. You can't seem to accept that. The Lakers traded Sasha why? Because his contract was too big/too long. But you supported the signing of that contract insisting that it wouldn't hurt anything. Well it cost us a draft pick to get rid of the contract. 



> They could of still picked them up if both parties were willing. That's an issue of talent mismanagement, not overpaying role players hurting the team.


There are only a certain number of roster spots and assets to use to pick those players up, and the salaries already given out make it less likely to bring in another player at that position.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Some of us can realize that money matters and the Lakers make roster decisions based on it. You can't seem to accept that. The Lakers traded Sasha why? Because his contract was too big/too long. But you supported the signing of that contract insisting that it wouldn't hurt anything. Well it cost us a draft pick to get rid of the contract.


We didn't have to get rid of the contract. Our desire to save money cost us the draft pick, not the contract.

And we finally agree. Yes I can't accept that the Lakers make moves to save money. This means nothing, but I love the Lakers. If I owned them as long as I made a profit (and Buss is making a BIG profit) I would spend whatever cent it took to make them better. Owning the Lakers should be a hobby, not a business venture. What I don't get is why a majority of the fans accept/support a guy who is billionaire saving 9 million.

What I said when those guys were signed still stands today, it only hurts the Lakers if Buss wants to penny pinch.



> Yes, but there are only a certain number of roster spots and assets to use to pick those players up.


The roster spot argument would only be valid if Sasha and Luke were the two worst players on the team and the team had the max amount of players. During the last 5 seasons (since Luke was resigned) the Lakers have only carried the max amount of players once. And players like Sun Yue and Mbenga were here.

No assets were used except Buss' infinite millions of dollars.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> We didn't have to get rid of the contract. Our desire to save money cost us the draft pick, not the contract.
> 
> And we finally agree. Yes I can't accept that the Lakers make moves to save money. This means nothing, but I love the Lakers. If I owned them as long as I made a profit (and Buss is making a BIG profit) I would spend whatever cent it took to make them better. Owning the Lakers should be a hobby, not a business venture. What I don't get is why a majority of the fans accept/support a guy who is billionaire saving 9 million.
> 
> ...


All it means is you are unrealistic. Go ahead and pretend like owners are/should be in it as a hobby. When you realize that's not true maybe you will stop supporting signing scrubs like Walton and Sasha.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> All it means is you are unrealistic. Go ahead and pretend like owners are/should be in it as a hobby. When you realize that's not true maybe you will stop supporting signing scrubs like Walton and Sasha.


Who says I'm pretending? I admitted Buss is like that. I'm repeating myself (boy you are stubborn or dense) but *it doesn't mean I have to accept and support it*.

Not all owners are like that by the way. Cuban will pay a backup 10 million plus. Same with Dolan. I bet Joe Lacob and Peter Guber will be the same way.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Who says I'm pretending? I admitted Buss is like that. I'm repeating myself (boy you are stubborn or dense) but *it doesn't mean I have to accept and support it*.
> 
> Not all owners are like that by the way. Cuban will pay a backup 10 million plus. Same with Dolan. I bet Joe Lacob and Peter Guber will be the same way.


You don't have to support it, but accepting it would make sense because that's how it is.

And I'm not sure Buss is really that bad when it comes to penny pinching. I mean, the Lakers have one of the highest payrolls in the league and they were paying Odom $8 million a year as a backup. So I'm not going to freak out if they trade a scrub like Blake for Felton.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

trading a scrub like blake for a worse scrub like felton (this year) just to save money hurts the team


----------

