# Dwight for Griffin and Bledsoe



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

This was mentioned on ESPN and though it is wild speculation, ther is nothing else Lakers to talk about so. . .

would you do a sign and trade of Dwight for Blake Griffin and Eric Bledsoe?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Would the Lakers? Yea. Would the Clippers? Not unless Howard and Paul forced it. No.

Griffin and Bledsoe is way too much to give up in a sign and trade.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Yeah, the Clippers wouldn't be giving up Bledsoe because they'd need to fill in around Howard and Paul. However if CP3 demanded it, I'm sure that the Clippers would do Griffin for Howard. But not more than that as they'd still need to find a SG, SF, and PF.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> Yeah, the Clippers wouldn't be giving up Bledsoe because they'd need to fill in around Howard and Paul. However if CP3 demanded it, I'm sure that the Clippers would do Griffin for Howard. But not more than that as they'd still need to find a SG, SF, and PF.


If we're being completely hypothetical, I guess they _could_ trade Jordan for a SG,SF or PF in that scenario, but the point still stands that Griffin and Bledsoe is too much to give up in a S&T.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I'd take griffin and Bledsoe.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Howard would pretty much have to be a fool to leave the Lakers and stay in Los Angeles. It would be such a PR debacle that even he couldn't author it. The Lakers probably would just tell him to **** off too, even though Griffin would be a pretty high return on an S&T. It'd be too much for their pride it seems to me.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Diable said:


> Howard would pretty much have to be a fool to leave the Lakers and stay in Los Angeles. It would be such a PR debacle that even he couldn't author it. The Lakers probably would just tell him to **** off too, even though Griffin would be a pretty high return on an S&T. It'd be too much for their pride it seems to me.


Dwights the kind of guy who would take it all to heart and let it ruin him though.

It would be a hilarious train wreck to witness.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> If we're being completely hypothetical, I guess they _could_ trade Jordan for a SG,SF or PF in that scenario, but the point still stands that Griffin and Bledsoe is too much to give up in a S&T.


Right, I was completely agreeing with you. There's no way the Clippers would give up more than Griffin for Howard.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> Right, I was completely agreeing with you. There's no way the Clippers would give up more than Griffin for Howard.


Oh I know. Wasn't trying to argue.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

I'd do it. But it would be a PR nightmare.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

there is exactly 0.0000000001% chance that the lakers would be willing to help build a super team in their own building - now if dwight and cp3 want to move to atlanta I could see them helping out but right here in staples? someone better tell broussard that cocaine is a helluva drug


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

let me just add that it was morally repugnant when the ultimate reach around from Herr Stern to team sterling ****ed the marquee franchise in the association to benefit the worst franchise/professional sports team owner ever/poster child for why the league had to have a work stoppage in the first place (say what you will about the package, the lakers were giving up fair value)

and if the lakers were to turn around and help facilitate this ultimate indignity? I quit, **** it I still have 6 CD set commemorating the golden years


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> I'd do it. But it would be a PR nightmare.


Dwightmare


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Kooks (Feb 3, 2013)

I don't agree with this trade. If Dwight and Paul want to team up they have to go in Atlanta because i think it is the only team in the ligue which can sign them. And perhaps the Lakers will recieve Josh Smith ( it's been many years we're talking about a trade between the Lakers and The Hawks..). But if this trade isn't a fantasm it will involve many teams...---> Dwightmare 2. I think Griffin doesn't want to play for the Lakers but Bledsoe could be a very interesting player for them.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

e-monk said:


> (say what you will about the package, the lakers were giving up fair value)


That package was awful. There's no sense in capping out your team to fight with Portland for the title of eleventh-best team in the West.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Bogg said:


> That package was awful. There's no sense in capping out your team to fight with Portland for the title of eleventh-best team in the West.


the Lakers were giving up fair value regardless and the last thing the crybaby owners were worried about was what the hornets were getting, it was that the lakers were getting over and still had the wherewithal to land dwight (as was later proven)


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

CONSPIRACY!


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Kooks said:


> I don't agree with this trade. If Dwight and Paul want to team up they have to go in Atlanta because i think it is the only team in the ligue which can sign them. And perhaps the Lakers will recieve Josh Smith ( it's been many years we're talking about a trade between the Lakers and The Hawks..). But if this trade isn't a fantasm it will involve many teams...---> Dwightmare 2. I think Griffin doesn't want to play for the Lakers but Bledsoe could be a very interesting player for them.


the lakers cant take back josh smith because teams over the cap cant take back S&T plus I would think the point of atlanta for dwight would be to play with his buddy anyway

on the other hand the lakers could take back horford who is a near allstar and has a super cap friendly contract for the value he represents


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

R-Star said:


> CONSPIRACY!


precisely


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Bogg said:


> That package was awful. There's no sense in capping out your team to fight with Portland for the title of eleventh-best team in the West.


Scola, odom, Martin and dragic would of won them more games than Aminu, kaman, Gordon and Rivers have that's for sure. Not to mention all of those players except scola would of came off the books right now. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## onelakerfan (Nov 11, 2004)

Lakers are not doin s&t with DH unless they get someone with a same value. They rather loose Howard and clean the books and do the ride and pony dance next year with the same group than tie up the cap space with some bench warmer. Jerry West said this before about FAs and Mitch thinks the same way.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

onelakerfan said:


> Lakers are not doin s&t with DH unless they get someone with a same value. They rather loose Howard and clean the books and do the ride and pony dance next year with the same group than tie up the cap space with some bench warmer. Jerry West said this before about FAs and Mitch thinks the same way.


Who the hell has mentioned trading Dwight for a bench warmer in this thread?


----------



## onelakerfan (Nov 11, 2004)

Go back and read r star. Josh smith, Harford, D Jordan . Those are bench warmers for me, and don't try to argue they are not, I don't have time for that.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

onelakerfan said:


> Go back and read r star. Josh smith, Harford, D Jordan . Those are bench warmers for me, and don't try to argue they are not, I don't have time for that.


Ridiculous.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Smith and especially Horford are most certainly not bench warmers.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Yeah, the Clippers wouldn't be giving up Bledsoe because they'd need to fill in around Howard and Paul. However if CP3 demanded it, I'm sure that the Clippers would do Griffin for Howard. But not more than that as they'd still need to find a SG, SF, and PF.


If they did Griffin for Howard straight up they could still flip Bledsoe/Butler for Afflalo. 



onelakerfan said:


> Go back and read r star. Josh smith, Harford, D Jordan . Those are bench warmers for me, and don't try to argue they are not, I don't have time for that.


Huh?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

wow - someone is going to have his bubble burst next month


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

> Lakers have fully resisted Clippers overtures on a sign-and-trade for Dwight Howard. "They will never do it," source with knowledge tells Y!
> https://twitter.com/WojYahooNBA/status/346029979479453696


...


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> on the other hand the lakers could take back horford who is a near allstar and has a super cap friendly contract for the value he represents


I actually think this is the scenario that LA should be pushing Dwight into. Horford is _really_ good. He's a complete player on both sides of the ball and a perfect fit next to Gasol. It's a really good foundation for the summer of '14 FA class.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

I'm not sure who starts these bullshit rumors, probably that clown Simmons out of Boston, but the Clippers would be criminally stupid to trade for 70 years of washed up Celtics and end up giving Griffin, Bledsoe, and Jordan for that.

I thought CP3 is close to Griffin? Why the **** would he try to move him for Howard?

Idiotic.

This trade scenario is DOA.

As usual.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

No way this is going down.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Ron said:


> I'm not sure who starts these bullshit rumors, probably that clown Simmons out of Boston, but the Clippers would be criminally stupid to trade for 70 years of washed up Celtics and end up giving Griffin, Bledsoe, and Jordan for that.
> 
> I thought CP3 is close to Griffin? Why the **** would he try to move him for Howard?
> 
> ...


no one is talking about Griffin I dont think - last I read the sides were disagreeing about whether even bledsoe should be included


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I'm sorry, but I see NO WAY the Lakers would trade Dwight. This guy is free to go do what he wants, but the Lakers won't help him accomplish it. Even though talent wise I actually like this trade. 

They're the ****ing Lakers, if he walks they just reload in 2014.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

in fact they already shut this talk down


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I don't know how this could conceivably happen unless the Clippers were able to sign Howard outright in the first place, which would pressure the Lakers into consenting. Of course if that were possible there's no way in hell the Clippers would give up Griffin. It's just a stupid rumor that never made any sense.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

the only trade away is going to be a team that can sign him outright but also wants/needs to add a piece or resign an asset (like Atlanta)

I could see something from one of the texas teams but only to grab that 5th year which means it will be dimes on the dollar - still if it were a pick or two that would definitely help us along with the inevitable rebuild


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

e-monk said:


> the Lakers were giving up fair value regardless and the last thing the crybaby owners were worried about was what the hornets were getting, it was that the lakers were getting over and still had the wherewithal to land dwight (as was later proven)


The "crybaby owners" were worried about New Oleans getting a crap package that added millions in financial commitments while they were trying to sell the franchise and recoup their money. The Hornets would have been just about capped out _and_ out of the playoffs - it made no sense, and as such was a bad trade from their part. 




Jamel Irief said:


> Scola, odom, Martin and dragic would of won them more games than Aminu, kaman, Gordon and Rivers have that's for sure. Not to mention all of those players except scola would of came off the books right now.


Considering that teams' _upside_ is last(this?) years' Bucks squad, I don't think Pelicans fans are lamenting the lost opportunity of rooting for back-to-back 36-win squads. Bottoming out with Kamans' expiring, picks, and prospects was the right move. There's no way you'd trade Anthony Davis for those four players right now.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Get out of here with your stupid reasoning and facts.


CONSPIRACY!!!!


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Bogg said:


> Considering that teams' _upside_ is last(this?) years' Bucks squad, I don't think Pelicans fans are lamenting the lost opportunity of rooting for back-to-back 36-win squads. Bottoming out with Kamans' expiring, picks, and prospects was the right move. There's no way you'd trade Anthony Davis for those four players right now.


So you didn't really refute my statement at all did you?

I think you just took it to mean more than it actually did. And your "capped out" statement you meant for the first two seasons right?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Bogg said:


> The "crybaby owners" were worried about New Oleans getting a crap package that added millions in financial commitments while they were trying to sell the franchise and recoup their money. The Hornets would have been just about capped out _and_ out of the playoffs - it made no sense, and as such was a bad trade from their part.


you should go back and look at Gilbert's email or Cuban's comments because you clearly missed something - they mention the lakers getting Paul a lot - they mention the hornets hardly at all - gilbert literally laments someting along the lines of the lakers having enough left over to go after Howard

they were much more concerned with the Lakers being able to reload than anything having to do with the hornets, this was clear from their statements 



> Considering that teams' _upside_ is last(this?) years' Bucks squad, I don't think Pelicans fans are lamenting the lost opportunity of rooting for back-to-back 36-win squads. Bottoming out with Kamans' expiring, picks, and prospects was the right move. There's no way you'd trade Anthony Davis for those four players right now.


while debatable, this has absolutely zero to do with my statement - the Lakers gave fair value from their end whether or not you like how it got expressed on the Pelicans end and I havent seen any proof that the hornets are headed in anything like the right direction even now and that's with the suspect gift of the davis pick


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

R-Star said:


> Get out of here with your stupid reasoning and facts.
> 
> 
> CONSPIRACY!!!!


they have dictionaries on line if you need help with the definitions of any of those words, 'stupid reasoning' is about all you got right 

the owners did conspire, it's a matter of record and that's not even taking into account about how openly the new cba was aimed at offsetting (teams like) the lakers competitive advantages to benefit the poorly run small (and in some cases large) market teams that an over extended and over expanded league couldnt manage to keep profitiable


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Commissioner,



> It would be a travesty to allow the Lakers to acquire Chris Paul in the apparent trade being discussed.
> 
> This trade should go to a vote of the 29 owners of the Hornets.
> 
> ...


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

e-monk said:


> Commissioner,


You do realize you're just proving that it was a lopsided, unfair trade with this post correct?

That's not conspiracy, its fact.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Diable said:


> I don't know how this could conceivably happen unless the Clippers were able to sign Howard outright in the first place, which would pressure the Lakers into consenting. Of course if that were possible there's no way in hell the Clippers would give up Griffin. It's just a stupid rumor that never made any sense.


It doesn't need to be the Clippers, if anyone can sign Howard outright then the Lakers have to pick their return when he walks. There's no reason for Dallas to give anything up because in sign & trades contracts are capped to what a player can get in free agency (meaning that Dallas can't pay him more in a sign & trade). So the Lakers options would be something along the lines of getting Griffin as a return for Howard or getting nothing if he signed someplace like Atlanta or Dallas or (god forbid) Houston.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

R-Star said:


> You do realize you're just proving that it was a lopsided, unfair trade with this post correct?
> 
> That's not conspiracy, its fact. (fyi the word 'conspiracy' means (among other things): "2 or more people plotting" so,_ in fact_, it's both)


your reading comprehension is usually better - his concerns were prioritized as 

1) the lakers not having to pay him the luxury tax money
2) the lakers continuing to execise competitive advantage and build another super team
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
11) the poor hornets


meanwhile I find it ironic that some of the same people who continue to bitch about the Pau trade try to justify the Paul trade to the Clippers as anything different (which is to say I completely understand that side of the argument (i.e. what the hornets got) - they are similar in goal and structure to the pau trade cash dump and prospects/picks )- I guess as long as a trade doesnt benefit the lakers it's cool


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

e-monk said:


> you should go back and look at Gilbert's email or Cuban's comments because you clearly missed something - they mention the lakers getting Paul a lot - they mention the hornets hardly at all - gilbert literally laments someting along the lines of the lakers having enough left over to go after Howard
> 
> they were much more concerned with the Lakers being able to reload than anything having to do with the hornets, this was clear from their statements


Normally I'd question if you even read the entire letter that you posted, but you went to the trouble to actually highlight the parts where Gilbert complained that the Hornets were taking on massive amounts of payroll (which Gilbert and the other owners were footing the bill for) while not receiving anything in the way of picks or prospects. Yea, he mentions Dwight Howard, but aside from that one sentence and a half, it was all about Buss getting over financially on the other owners while giving up nothing in the way of future assets and leaving the Hornets (which Gilbert, Cuban, etc were all part owners of) dead in the water with has-beens and a never-will-be.





e-monk said:


> while debatable, this has absolutely zero to do with my statement - the Lakers gave fair value from their end


The "fair value" was Pau, who was going to the Rockets, who in turn dumped players they didn't want on the Hornets. The Hornets, by the way, are the team that the 29 other owners collectively owned, were footing the bill for, and were actively trying to sell and make a profit on. 

The trade in question would have reduced the payments the non-tax teams got from the Lakers, increased the financial commitments the owners were tied into (as they were footing the bill for the Hornets), and likely reduced the eventual sale price (or at least made it harder to find a new owner, and thus increased the amount of time they'd be laying out money to float New Orleans). 

The idea that 29 other owners were somehow required to eat a huge financial loss without giving any sort of input on the matter because a GM put together a "gotta save my job" panic trade is asinine. It's why it's ethically murky for the league to collectively own a franchise, but when the other teams are paying the bills and have a financial stake in the club, they get a say in what happens. 

Cuban pitched a fit about New Orleans trading for Carl Landry the season prior (I believe) because it increased their payroll for that year. It's impossible to argue that he was being inconsistent by protesting a massive increase in payroll later that calendar year. 

As far as "fair value" - the Hornets were getting a guy who was later amnestied, a combo forward who literally didn't show up that season due to sadness from no longer playing in LA, a shooting guard notable mostly for failing to come through in the playoffs this year, and a "scoring point guard" who couldn't post 15 a game for the worst team in the West. It doesn't matter what the Lakers were sending out, it matters what the Hornets were getting back...and what they were getting back was crap.



e-monk said:


> I havent seen any proof that the hornets are headed in anything like the right direction even now and that's with the suspect gift of the davis pick


They sold the Hornets that season for a reasonable price, yes? That's what most of the owners were concerned with, Lakers persecution complexes aside. 




e-monk said:


> meanwhile I find it ironic that some of the same people who continue to bitch about the Pau trade try to justify the Paul trade to the Clippers as anything different (which is to say I completely understand that side of the argument (i.e. what the hornets got) - they are similar in goal and structure to the pau trade cash dump and prospects/picks )- I guess as long as a trade doesnt benefit the lakers it's cool



I've said multiple times on here that the Grizz do that Pau trade again 10 times out of 10. In the _exact letter you posted_, Gilbert lays out how the Grizzlies got financial flexibility plus draft picks/prospects, which is the exact opposite of what the Paul trade would have netted New Orleans.


EDIT:


Jamel Irief said:


> So you didn't really refute my statement at all did you?
> 
> I think you just took it to mean more than it actually did. And your "capped out" statement you meant for the first two seasons right?


What I'm saying is your statement is meaningless. If you're solidly a lottery team, winning 35 games instead of 25 games is actually a bad thing. Also, yes, they would have been capped out for two seasons, giving them max cap space for this weak free agent class after picking around tenth or so two years in a row. Nobody in New Orleans is sad that they aren't rebuilding around Goran Dragic, Terrance Ross, Cody Zeller, and Al Jefferson.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I guess an option for the Clippers would be to work out a deal with the Cavs. It would need to be pre-arranged. But something like Griffin/Butler for Thompson/McLemore/Gee after July 1st allows them to sign Howard outright, add a third scoring option in McLemore, get coverage at the four, and still have space available to fill out the roster.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> I guess an option for the Clippers would be to work out a deal with the Cavs. It would need to be pre-arranged. But something like Griffin/Butler for Thompson/McLemore/Gee after July 1st allows them to sign Howard outright, add a third scoring option in McLemore, get coverage at the four, and still have space available to fill out the roster.


Would actually be a really nice deal if they were sure they were getting Howard.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

You can't make any moves that require you to trust Dwight Howard though.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Yea, I wouldn't hate that for either side. Again, assuming they knew they had Howard locked up.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Sign and trade for Blake/Bledsoe? No thanks. We're trying to win championships. I'm glad the Lakers have said no to them. It wouldn't make any sense.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Diable said:


> You can't make any moves that require you to trust Dwight Howard though.


Yes, but it's the Clippers.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I hope Chris Paul Elton Brand's Dwight Howard.

That would be hilarious.


----------



## Drizzy (Mar 23, 2012)

R-Star said:


> I hope Chris Paul Elton Brand's Dwight Howard.
> 
> That would be hilarious.


Would love this.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Bogg said:


> What I'm saying is your statement is meaningless. If you're solidly a lottery team, winning 35 games instead of 25 games is actually a bad thing. Also, yes, they would have been capped out for two seasons, giving them max cap space for this weak free agent class after picking around tenth or so two years in a row. Nobody in New Orleans is sad that they aren't rebuilding around Goran Dragic, Terrance Ross, Cody Zeller, and Al Jefferson.


Meaningless, but accurate.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Jamel Irief said:


> Meaningless, but accurate.


Why would winning another 7 or 8 games last year and maybe another five this year be in any way attractive?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Why is the package they got far more attractive? Is Gordon much more valuable than dragic?


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Jamel Irief said:


> Why is the package they got far more attractive? Is Gordon much more valuable than dragic?


Because it didn't come with the financial commitments the Lakers' package did (attractive to the other owners) and allowed the team to pitch the incoming ownership on a guaranteed high draft selection as a result of bottoming out while they shopped the team around (which turned out to be #1 overall and a possible cornerstone). How excited can you really get about spending $25 million on Luis Scola and Emeka Okafor alone next year?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I can agree with that but not enough to be up in arms about one a d enthusiastically green light another. Only Scola and Martin would of got
paid this past season. They bottomed out because kaman and Gordon sat a good part of the first season. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

Basel said:


> Sign and trade for Blake/Bledsoe? No thanks. We're trying to win championships. I'm glad the Lakers have said no to them. It wouldn't make any sense.


I would take that deal every day of the week. Blake's game is still evolving. Howard has leveled off. And back injuries never really go away, especially when you are he post defender and people are constantly running full speed at you all game. 

And the Lakers would have to "convince" Blake to stay. He gets it !


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Blake's game has evolved zip- you could even argue (given that his ppg and rpg have dropped off every season) that he's regressed


----------

