# Ok, let's just say...



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Now, I haven't TOTALLY given up hope on the Lakers yet (I probably should, since this is exactly where they were last season). However, I've got a hypothetical sitaution for you guys here. Let's just say that the Lakers do go on to lose this series to the Spurs and get eliminated from the playoffs, and these events follow...

1) Gary Payton is let go.

2) Kobe Bryant re-signs with another team.

3) Karl Malone is let go.

4) Phil Jackson isn't re-signed.

5) Shaquille O'Neal retires.

6) Derek Fisher leaves.

First of all, I do think Kobe will re-sign with the Lakers, and I don't think Shaq will retire if Phil doesn't return. However, they are both possibilities.

We'd be left with an outstanding lineup of Slava Medvedenko, Brian Cook, Devean George, Kareem Rush and some bum.

YIKES!

So, do you think there would still be as much hatred for the Lakers as there is now?


----------



## The MAgiC (Aug 3, 2003)

We'd be too busy laughing at you to hate you.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The MAgiC</b>!
> We'd be too busy laughing at you to hate you.


We might suck but we'd still have more wins than Orlando.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

:laugh: ahahah this is some good ****


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Shaquille O'Neal cannot just decide to retire a healthy player with two years and $60 million remaining on his contract, there are clauses against that. 

With Shaq on the team, the Lakers are always going to be a contender. I think Kobe will see that Shaq is gradually losing his title of MDE and will stay with the glitz and glamour that is LA. This seems like a very unrealistic scenario to me.


----------



## jadakiss_25 (Aug 4, 2003)

I could see all of those happening, except Shaq retiring. I also do agree that Kobe will remain a Laker. If they both do, expect them to re-sign Phil Jackson. 

BUT, if all of those did happen, LA would be left with ****ty role players, and jack squat for draft picks. 

Derek Fisher leaving or staying won't make a huge difference either way, and no I dont think there would be much hatred towards LA as there is now. Just more laughter, and I'd be one of em. :laugh:


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

First of all, who cares who else hates the Lakers?

Second, saying your hypothetical situation played itself out, maybe for a season people you love to beat up on the Lakers just because they've been beating up on everyone else for the past 5 years, but after that I don't think anyone would care anymore.


----------



## Ice Nine (Apr 3, 2004)

Go to the Chicago Bulls forum and ask that question. MUAHAHAHA! 

I expect Payton will be traded or released outright. Malone will retire. Kobe will go to the eastern conference. Phil Jackson will retire. I guess Shaq will become trade bait.


----------



## Vermillion (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> We'd be left with an outstanding lineup of Slava Medvedenko, Brian Cook, Devean George, Kareem Rush and some bum.


At least Kareem could now strut his stuff.


----------



## The MAgiC (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> We might suck but we'd still have more wins than Orlando.


Who are you trying to fool? You'd be lucky to have 1 win with that team. What a rediculous thing to say.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

If all of those things happened, the Lakers would have a ton of cap room, and a top draft pick next year, no?

Seems like the last time that happened they aquired a certain Orlando Magic superstar...could history repeat itself? Be afraid.

On the plus side, there's no Jerry West this time to rebuild the Lakers. That's what made them good for so long.

It would take me a few years of the Lakers being in the lottery to get over hating them. But as soon as they got good again I would go back to hating them. It's a tradition unlike any other.

I'm sure there are people who feel the same way about the Celtics. Or at least used to.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> If all of those things happened, the Lakers would have a ton of cap room, and a top draft pick next year, no?


That situation has failed the Magic (twice), the Bulls, the Cavaliers (until they got James), the Clippers (admittedly, unusual owner)...

It's not easy to land impact free agents. The Lakers might, but big cap room doesn't necessarily mean big superstar. It'll be Kupchak's first truly major test.

But O'Neal won't retire and Bryant almost surely won't skip town. Payton probably will, Jackson might well leave...Malone will probably stay until he gets the scoring record.

The Lakers will hang around as a dangerous team until O'Neal really does retire, or declines into uselessness.


----------



## Idunkonyou (Feb 23, 2003)

I could see Kobe, Fisher, Malone, Payton and Jackson leaving. Shaq could retire, but his contract would still be on the cap. The CBA will not allow him to just throw up his hands and take his contract with him. It doesn't work that way. No way is he getting traded. A team would have to gut their team or send two max contracts back. 

The funny thing is, even if all of those players leave, the Lakers will still be right around the max as far as the cap goes meaning they wouldn't have any money to spend on FAs until 2006 which is when Shaq's contract comes off the cap. 

So the Laker fans better be praying that Kobe stays, which IMO he won't. He could go to the Clippers who have a ton of young talent (Brand, Richardson, Maggette, Kaman, their draft pick this year, etc.) and still stay in LA. He would also have options in the Nuggets (Melo, Miller, Nene), Suns (Amare, Marion, Barbosa, high pick this year) and the Spurs (Duncan, Manu, Parker). 

Kobe has a lot of options and it isn't like they suck.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> Now, I haven't TOTALLY given up hope on the Lakers yet (I probably should, since this is exactly where they were last season). However, I've got a hypothetical sitaution for you guys here. Let's just say that the Lakers do go on to lose this series to the Spurs and get eliminated from the playoffs, and these events follow...
> 
> 1) Gary Payton is let go.
> ...


There'll still be as much hatred because the Lakers are the greatest franchise in basketball. I think LA has only missed the playoffs 4 times in 50+ years. If this team goes from powerhouse to outhouse, the fans that have been waiting for years to kick them while their down will.


----------



## OG (Aug 12, 2003)

i think that's what will happen if the lakers actually win.
Payton will have his ring, & move on to another team.
Malone will get his ring & finally retire.
Kobe will be saying goodbye regardless - I really see him going to the Suns.
Shaq will stay at least til his conract runs out. 
I'm not sure what Phil's planning on doing, but as for the fab four, I would be suprised if that all happened should the Lakers win the title.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

*Re: Re: Ok, let's just say...*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> There'll still be as much hatred because the Lakers are the greatest franchise in basketball. I think LA has only missed the playoffs 4 times in 50+ years. If this team goes from powerhouse to outhouse, the fans that have been waiting for years to kick them while their down will.




My question is, how cocky well Laker fans be if this does happen... or even better.... How many Laker fans will there be?

If this does happen it would be known as "pulling a Lakers" when a team goes from one of the best to the worst overnight.


----------



## #1BucksFan (Apr 14, 2003)

If you keep Phil, you could get Kukoc, Horace Grant, and Scottie Pippin. At least the Lakers fans would say that the team could still win 50.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> If all of those things happened, the Lakers would have a ton of cap room, and a top draft pick next year, no?
> 
> Seems like the last time that happened they aquired a certain Orlando Magic superstar...could history repeat itself? Be afraid.
> ...


Yet another player bolting the pond for LA? :laugh: That would be too funny. I doubt it happens, though. TMac seems happy in Orlando. 

I agree that losing West really hampers our rebuilding efforts. Mitch Kupchak has done a decent job of keeping the Lakers in contention but I've yet to see how he'd fare in a rebuilding situation. Judging by his draft picks, I think he'd fail miserably. He doesn't seem, to want to take any chances. That is what seperated West from other GMs. He didn't mind taking risks. Kupchak is risk averse. He'll settle for the sure thing and pass on something that could be much much better. I have no confidence in him as a GM. I just wish Jerry West wasn't doing so well in Memphis. I'd love to have him back.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Ok, let's just say...*



> Originally posted by <b>stevemc</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is what I mean. You dislike LA so much, you overproject the possibility of them going from best to worst, as if that's even possible? For one, LA is not the best team in the NBA. And there's really no way they would ever drop into the league of the cellar dwellars. Do you really think that's a possibility?


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, let's just say...*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> This is what I mean. You dislike LA so much, you overproject the possibility of them going from best to worst, as if that's even possible? For one, LA is not the best team in the NBA. And there's really no way they would ever drop into the league of the cellar dwellars. Do you really think that's a possibility?


I said "one of the best teams"

Hey I've been a Mavs fan for as long as I can remember... Its hard to deal with. Its all good tho.


----------



## Cometsbiggestfan (May 14, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> We might suck but we'd still have more wins than Orlando.




haha. boy this was a good comeback.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, let's just say...*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> And there's really no way they would ever drop into the league of the cellar dwellars. Do you really think that's a possibility?


If all those aforementioned things happen (although that's not going to happen) then it would definitely be a possibility with that lineup that was proposed in the first post.
The Medvedenko Troop isn't all that threatening.

Luckily for you, those things most likely won't all happen at once.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, let's just say...*



> Originally posted by <b>JRose5</b>!
> 
> 
> If all those aforementioned things happen (although that's not going to happen) then it would definitely be a possibility with that lineup that was proposed in the first post.
> ...


You guys are forgeting one thing, Shaq! He doesn't have the option to go play elsewhere. The only option he would have if he did want to stay is to retire. Which means there is plenty of cap room to sign someone in place of Kobe. GP and Malone will be gone. And you'd be kidding yourself to think that there isn't a list of players who are free agents this year that would jump off a ledge backward into a pool full of aligators to play with Shaq. Well maybe not a pool of aligators, but you get the point. :grinning:


----------



## The MAgiC (Aug 3, 2003)

> There'll still be as much hatred because the Lakers are the greatest franchise in basketball.


When did the Celtics fold?  You're full of it IV.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The MAgiC</b>!
> 
> 
> When did the Celtics fold?  You're full of it IV.


You're good at making statement but you never back it with any thought. You're like the guy on the court who tells everyone how good he is, but he never has time to play. 

You tell me why the Celtics have a greater legacy than LA, and I'll argue against. In other words, when you're ready to get out on the court and play ball, let me know.... cause I'm tired of hearing you talk a good game... for once maybe you could back up that talk with some showmanship.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, let's just say...*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> You guys are forgeting one thing, Shaq! He doesn't have the option to go play elsewhere. The only option he would have if he did want to stay is to retire. Which means there is plenty of cap room to sign someone in place of Kobe. GP and Malone will be gone. And you'd be kidding yourself to think that there isn't a list of players who are free agents this year that would jump off a ledge backward into a pool full of aligators to play with Shaq. Well maybe not a pool of aligators, but you get the point. :grinning:


LMAO LAker fan......if someone retires their salary still counts against the cap. HA HA HA! Shaq is going to retire and the money will count! Don't believe me? Go to hoopshype.com where you will see that Hakeem Olajuwon counted against the Raptors cap THIS season! If Shaq retires you guys will be over the cap until 2007 LOL!


----------



## Moe The Bartender (May 7, 2004)

*Not so fast, IV*

IV = (There'll still be as much hatred because the Lakers are the greatest franchise in basketball)

Actually, they might have been considered that 2 years ago, but the fact is, they are not right now. "Greatest franchise" status comes and goes (i.e. Celtics, Bulls), and is probably indicative of not only the playing level of the team, but also salary cap management...maybe you can arguably call yourselves the one of the greatest franchises of all times, but there are some serious financial and age problems with the current Laker team. The Spurs are in far better shape right now and for the next few years to come than are the Lakers. The Lakers had their run, now the Spurs are in place for theirs. There are some other teams out there that can argue this also.

I think comments like what you made are what get people riled up...I know, because I'm a Cowboy fan and everybody hates a successful team with many titles, so I'm not just flaming you.

Spurs in 5 :yes:


----------



## The MAgiC (Aug 3, 2003)

> You tell me why the Celtics have a greater legacy than LA, and I'll argue against.


I'm truly sorry. I must have mistakenly overrated your knowledge of NBA history. I'll never do it again. From now on I'll try to keep the conversation pertaining to 2000 until now, your happy time. The only time when you WEREN'T overshadowed by them.  

But thanks for personally bashing me for no reason, considering you should already know exactly why the Celtics are the better franchise, and only a retard would need me to spell it out.

In other words, I'll go ahead and do it now.

You know those big gold thingies that are made out of metal? You know, the shiny ones. I know you're attracted to shiny objects. They have more than you.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, let's just say...*



> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> LMAO LAker fan......if someone retires their salary still counts against the cap. HA HA HA! Shaq is going to retire and the money will count! Don't believe me? Go to hoopshype.com where you will see that Hakeem Olajuwon counted against the Raptors cap THIS season! If Shaq retires you guys will be over the cap until 2007 LOL!


You're a clown. Shaq's not retiring and that was the point I was making. Everything you posted doesn't not refute my opinion. 

When i said, '_that means there will be plenty of room to sign someone to replace Bryant._' What I ment was, the money they would pay *Kobe*, if he stayed, will give them some cap space to sign someone else. And there are many players in the NBA that would love to play with Shaq. 

You're moving to fast, slow down. I can't take the time to explain things to you like you're a 3rd grader everytime you get hyper and forget to use the comprehension skills I'm sure you learned in grade school.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The MAgiC</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm truly sorry. I must have mistakenly overrated your knowledge of NBA history. I'll never do it again. From now on I'll try to keep the conversation pertaining to 2000 until now, your happy time.
> ...


Still wont pick up the ball will you? That okay I didn't expect you too. If you ever want to step on the court and play with the boys, instead of watching from the sideline with the girls, I'll be ready. 

That's the one thing that get's you rattled, when a person disagrees with you. You know why, because every discussion is an arguement to you. For me, I don't have a problem with those who disagree with me, in fact, I prefer for people to disagree with me that way you have something to talk about. I just like to discuss a difference of opinion with someone who can simply explain his point of view... is that too much to ask for?


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, let's just say...*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> You're a clown. Shaq's not retiring and that was the point I was making. Everything you posted doesn't not refute my opinion.
> ...


LMAO read the quote

"The only option he would have if he did want to stay is to retire. Which means there is plenty of cap room to sign someone in place of Kobe."

Use of the word "which" implies that if Shaq retires there would be more cap room available than there would be if he stayed. Do you get that? The word "which" in that context means "the condition precedent forces a new landscape."

The Lakers will only be about 4 million under the projected cap even if Kobe, Malone AND Payton all leave. So who the hell are they gonna sign with that? They'd be better off being over the cap, then at least they'd have their exception.

IV: "You just wait until we use our 4 million dollars in cap room to reload! We might be able to make a run at Jamal Crawford!" 

*WHICH*


----------



## The MAgiC (Aug 3, 2003)

> Still wont pick up the ball will you? That okay I didn't expect you too. If you ever want to step on the court and play with the boys, instead of watching from the sideline with the girls, I'll be ready.


Your downright denial of the cold hard facts and acting as if I didn't say a word amuses me. Keep those Purple & Gold glasses on, and continue to keep your fingers in your ears. You have your point of view, I have the facts that are a part of reality. If you choose to not accept these facts, I hope you enjoy being the board's village idiot. Everyone point and laugh! :laugh:


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, let's just say...*



> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> LMAO read the quote
> ...


There's the mistake and it's my fault. It should read:

_"The only option he would have if he did*n't* want to stay is to retire. Which means there is plenty of cap room to sign someone in place of Kobe._

It should say didn't instead of did. I guess you can throw that in my face if it makes you feel better, but you should of took the time to realize that he couldn't really retire if he *did* want to stay. :yes:


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The MAgiC</b>!
> 
> 
> Your downright denial of the cold hard facts and acting as if I didn't say a word amuses me. Keep those Purple & Gold glasses on, and continue to keep your fingers in your ears. You have your point of view, I have the facts that are a part of reality. If you choose to not accept these facts, I hope you enjoy being the board's village idiot. Everyone point and laugh! :laugh:


What are the facts?


----------



## The MAgiC (Aug 3, 2003)

Jesus Christ, you are one thick mofo....


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, let's just say...*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> There's the mistake and it's my fault. It should read:
> ...


So you understand that ceteris parabus the Lakers cap situation is identical whether he retires or not and that even if he does stay, and Kobe, Karl and Gary leave, The Lakers will still be about 4 million under the cap right?


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The MAgiC</b>!
> Jesus Christ, you are one thick mofo....


No be serious for a second. One post, quote the facts. You stated the facts, right? Quote the facts. Just do it one time.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> 
> So, do you think there would still be as much hatred for the Lakers as there is now?


As a Bulls fan, I would be able to be there for you, man. We've been through a dynasty dismantling. (you might have heard about it... )


----------



## The MAgiC (Aug 3, 2003)

Quote the facts? What do you mean quote the facts?! They have more titles than you! End of story!


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, let's just say...*



> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> So you understand that ceteris parabus the Lakers cap situation is identical whether he retires or not and that even if he does stay, and Kobe, Karl and Gary leave, The Lakers will still be about 4 million under the cap right?


you're on a tangent. 

my opinion is simple. shaq is the most convented player in the league. any player in the league would love to play with him. if the team falls apart, there will be cap room to sign free agents. and those free agents will be willing to sign with the lakers just to play with Shaq.


----------



## The MAgiC (Aug 3, 2003)

I didn't know he was a nun. It's coveted.  And you're wrong. Again.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The MAgiC</b>!
> Quote the facts? What do you mean quote the facts?! They have more titles than you! End of story!


Why was that so hard? 

I can argue that the Celtics having more titles is does not make them greater than a Laker franchise that has been great in every decade of basketball. the Celtics were great in the 60's with Russell, and again in the 80's with Bird. LA was a greater franchise during the 80's they went to 9 out of 10 title series. They were greater in the 90's, and in the 70's and were almost as good in the 60's, and theay're definately better now. Yes Boston overwhelmed one decade of basketball, but LA was great in each and every decade. With two less titles, and that's why LA is greater than Boston. You wouldn't be silly enough to say Russell is greater than Jordan because he has nearly twice as many rings. Maybe you would


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, let's just say...*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> you're on a tangent.
> ...


Convented!!??? Holy [edit]? Shaq is going to become a nun!? I think you mean coveted.

You aren't listening. If Kobe, Karl, and Gary leave.....the Lakers payroll for next season is still 44.5 million dollars. The cap is projected to be around 48 million. So EVEN if those players leave......the Lakers will have 3.5 million dollars in cap room this summer. Who the F are you gonna sign with that? You gonna make a run at Jamal Crawford!? 

Shaq
Medvedenko
George
Crawford
Rush

Ok....nevermind. Now I get it.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, let's just say...*



> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> So you understand that ceteris parabus the Lakers cap situation is identical whether he retires or not and that even if he does stay, and Kobe, Karl and Gary leave, The Lakers will still be about 4 million under the cap right?


Ceteris par*i*bus. If you are going to inflate your argument by peppering posts with fancy latin phrases (instead of saying "all other things being equal") ya gotta git the latin _right_ my man!

:grinning: :laugh:


----------



## The MAgiC (Aug 3, 2003)

> I can argue that the Celtics having more titles is does not make them greater than a Laker franchise


No you can't. This isn't subjective. A franchise's success is measured by number of championships first and foremost. Until you win 2 more titles, you aren't as good as them. Period.

And comparing players is not the same as comparing franchises.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The MAgiC</b>!
> 
> 
> No you can't. This isn't subjective. A franchise's success is measured by number of championships first and foremost. Until you win 2 more titles, you aren't as good as them. Period.
> ...


Well at least you have a supported opinion now, I didn't know you had it in you. Good job! :greatjob:


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The MAgiC</b>!
> 
> 
> No you can't. This isn't subjective. A franchise's success is measured by number of championships first and foremost. Until you win 2 more titles, you aren't as good as them. Period.
> ...


Uhhh the Lakers are the most convented franchise in sports.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Come on. You've made your joke about "convented." Now you're running it into the ground. Its harassing.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Come on. You've made your joke about "convented." Now you're running it into the ground. Its harassing.


Awww why tom? Did you say the same about your boy "IV"?

Quotes from IV today (from his response to my first post of the day: 

"Try to keep up"
"Pick your face up from between your underwear"

But I am harassing. I think that that is your subjective opinion. If you have a tone and butcher a word like covet so bad.....you deserve to be smeared. Those who can't spell covet.....shouldn't have a tone.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

On the other thread I asked both of you to cool it with the cheap shots.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> On the other thread I asked both of you to cool it with the cheap shots.


Yeah I hadn't noticed that at the time I wrote in this thread. Thanks tom  As long as its unbiased I can admit maybe we both needed a little chiding.


----------

