# Update On Woods Situation...



## SikHandlez24 (Jun 8, 2002)

Insider is reporting that Woods has the chance to fall to 14, Pacers pick. They then said that they have been talking about and Woods, Croshere for Horry. Helps both teams. Pacers lose big contract and gain a greatbackup PF/SF. Lakrs get the man they have been wanting.


----------



## Devestata (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by *IMX *
> Insider is reporting that Woods has the chance to fall to 14, Pacers pick. They then said that they have been talking about and Woods, Croshere for Horry. Helps both teams. Pacers lose big contract and gain a greatbackup PF/SF. Lakrs get the man they have been wanting.


If Austin gets back to all star form and Qyntel becomes a star, the Lakers easily win this trade.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

How can the Lakers afford Croshere's contract? Also, without a decent backup for Tinsley, I'm sure the Pacers will hold out for Derek Fisher.....


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

*CROSHER*

WE CAN NOT AFFORED HIS CONTRACT

REALGM.COM


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

*Trade*

I stand my ground...why trade Horry. He is one of the best back-up PF in the game. We should sign and trade Devean George. A lot of teams out there want him.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Trade*



> Originally posted by *Mr. X *
> I stand my ground...why trade Horry. He is one of the best back-up PF in the game. We should sign and trade Devean George. A lot of teams out there want him.


I agree-Horry in LA forever!!!:yes:


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

I don't think it's about wanting to get rid of Horry as much as wanting to get Woods, because if Kobe or Shaq gets injured, they basically have no one who can get off their own shot.

I'd like for the Lakers to keep Horry as well, but they need to get another player that can make his own shot in the mix sometime. Shaq is only going to be here for 3 more years I think and you want someone used to the triangle so the Lakers can compete after shaq is gone. Plus Shaq's is really beat up, and unless he losses alot of weight, it'll be hard to avoid foot injuries to due to the stress he puts on his feet.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Don't like the trade. I admit I never have seen Woods play but Horry is eaisly the third most valuable member of this team. Croshere is erratic and only good at scoring. 

If the Lakers make this trade they must really be impressed by Woods, I'll trust Kupchak but again I don't want to give up Rob. They don't have use for Fox considering they have Harrington, Artest, Mercer, Bender etc. Maybe Fisher? Doubt it.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by *KennethTo *
> I don't think it's about wanting to get rid of Horry as much as wanting to get Woods, because if Kobe or Shaq gets injured, they basically have no one who can get off their own shot.


If Kobe or Shaq go down the Lakers are screwed, period. You don't make trades with injuries to your superstars in mind.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Ok, maybe I should change my words. If Kobe and Shaq are not on the floor, the Lakers offence is non-existant. We all saw it in the playoffs this year.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Jemel Irief *
> 
> 
> If Kobe or Shaq go down the Lakers are screwed, period. You don't make trades with injuries to your superstars in mind.


The Lakers were 2-0 with Kobe out of the lineup this year. They were something like 6-0 or 5-0 with Kobe out of the lineup last year. Don't mistake what I'm saying and think that I mean that Kobe is useless. Kobe's great, but they can go for short periods of time without him if they pass the ball well, and work as a team.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Mr. X *
> 
> 
> The Lakers were 2-0 with Kobe out of the lineup this year. They were something like 6-0 or 5-0 with Kobe out of the lineup last year. Don't mistake what I'm saying and think that I mean that Kobe is useless. Kobe's great, but they can go for short periods of time without him if they pass the ball well, and work as a team.


True and I agree. I also think they were over .500 (8-7) without Shaq as well. But outside of the first round or the NBA finals the Lakers can't win a playoff series if one of them is missing.

Kenneth, how often were Kobe and Shaq out of the game in the playoffs at the same time? I look at it this way, do you want a player that complements Shaq and Kobe extremly well (Horry) or one that can be effective when they are on the bench? Considering Shaq and Kobe each play about 40 minutes a game I'll go with Horry.

However he will probably retire when this contract is done (2 years), so that is a concern. But I feel he's earned the right to retire as a Laker.


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

*yep*

we need more offense


----------

