48 replies to this topic

[iDreamShake]

Mark Medina ‏@MedinaLakersNBA
Antawn Jamison to me about 5 DNP's: "It doesn't make sense at all. They're pretty much telling me my services are no longer needed."

knew this would happen. hes gunna ask for a trade. GOOD, lets get a pg back

[Lakers4Life]

Why are people saying Antwan needs to accept a trade. He doesn't have a no trade clause(NTC) only 4 players have a NTC and those are Kobe, Dirk, KG and Duncan. The rules to get a NTC In your contract requires 8 years of NBA experience and would have to be with the same team for 4 years. Thus can only be given to "re-signing" players and cannot be given to players changing teams via free agency.

For example Ray Allen could not have received one from Miami because he was not with them before this season. However he could have received one from Boston which he did in the final contract offer they gave him.

[iDreamShake]

Why are people saying Antwan needs to accept a trade. He doesn't have a no trade clause(NTC) only 4 players have a NTC and those are Kobe, Dirk, KG and Duncan. The rules to get a NTC In your contract requires 8 years of NBA experience and would have to be with the same team for 4 years. Thus can only be given to "re-signing" players and cannot be given to players changing teams via free agency.

For example Ray Allen could not have received one from Miami because he was not with them before this season. However he could have received one from Boston which he did in the final contract offer they gave him.

right , he actually does not have a no trade clause, BUT , the FO would look very bad for trading a vet who took less money to win, if that vet didnt agree to the trade. future FA vets wouldnt like it if we did antawn dirty

[Lakers4Life]

Lakers traded Gary Payton in 2005. See no difference here? Lol. They even traded an old vet in Derek Fisher who Lakers shoulld have been loyal to. There is no loyalty in sports....

[Lakers4Life]

Either way don't see them trading him... Only team that would want him would buy him out immediately unless Alrwady a contender don't see it happening tbh

[Majesty]

Lakers traded Gary Payton in 2005. See no difference here? Lol. They even traded an old vet in Derek Fisher who Lakers shoulld have been loyal to. There is no loyalty in sports....

2005 wasn't Mitch

And they traded Fisher AFTER already unloading Kapono and Walton.

Remember that deal was already done. Kapono and Walton for Sessions, was pretty much confirmed. So people expected Blake to be traded, and it turned out to be Fisher.

But notice Mitch unloaded Kapono and Walton(who contributed nothing) FIRST. See what I mean?

If Mitch can, he'll find a way to unload Duhon,Ebanks, Clark before trying to deal Jamison anywhere unless it's something big.

Edited by Majesty, December 28, 2012 - 11:38 PM.

[Lakers4Life]

2005 wasn't Mitch

And they traded Fisher AFTER already unloading Kapono and Walton.

Remember that deal was already done. Kapono and Walton for Sessions, was pretty much confirmed. So people expected Blake to be traded, and it turned out to be Fisher.

But notice Mitch unloaded Kapono and Walton(who contributed nothing) FIRST. See what I mean?

If Mitch can, he'll find a way to unload Duhon,Ebanks, Clark before trying to deal Jamison anywhere unless it's something big.

Who was it in 2005? Im 99% sure Mitch has been our GM since 2001.

[Majesty]

Who was it in 2005? Im 99% sure Mitch has been our GM since 2001.

Sorry bout that I meant was that 2005 wasn't mitch in "win now" mode. That was mitch in "build" mode

Gary Payton was not exactly being a team player even given our current situation, plus the fact that Shaq was on the outs, Mitch made a decision to try to surround Kobe with youth while trading away a veteran team. The guys he traded away were Shaq, Gary Payton and Rick Fox. All three guys past their prime and Shaq probably was the one that had more left. But Shaq tried to leverage Jerry Buss... and THAT is something you DO NOT do and they ultimately made the decision that Kobe was worth more to their franchise than Shaq SO they started getting rid of the veterans and started trying to rebuild a young core around Kobe.

Initially that went horribly. But it only took Mitch 3 years to fix all that. Actually the one guy he got from the Shaq trade Lamar Odom became a staple point for the Lakers in the future years and it only took Mitch two years to unload Brian Cook and Maurice Evans for trevor ariza, whom also became an important piece and then the very next year got us Pau Gasol while unloading Crittenton and Brown. So when Mitch was in "build" mode, he knew what he was doing.

But RIGHT NOW Mitch is in a winning now mode and mentality, like he was last year too. It's just about taking what was available.

But if you notice, Mitch was quick to unload the end of the bench guys BEFORE deciding to get rid of Fisher.

Because in win now he wanted to look at getting rid of the most clutter while getting back significantly better that fit.

So he traded away Luke Walton and Jason Kapono(who contributed pretty much nothing at that point in their careers)

And got us Ramon Sessions.

Remember after we got Ramon we all assumed(some of us) that Blake was gonna be the next to go, and that's why it was a shock to most everyone that Fisher was the guy that was sent out.

But the fact remains that Mitch got rid of the clutter before he got rid of the veteran.

This is how Mitch operates when he isn't "building" he finds who isn't contributing(not who isn't getting playtime, but who isn't contributing at all)

So when it comes down to it, Mitch would look to trade away Duhon, Clark and Ebanks before trying to get rid of Jamison.

In Jamison he has a cheap contract veterans minimum of a guy who although inconsistent CAN go out there and is capable of getting 20 against NBA competition.

While Duhon, Clark and Ebanks are basically garbage time players.

So when it comes down to it, Mitch is only gonna trade Jamison if it's something big. And he would look to unload Clark, Duhon and Ebanks for anything productive(or picks) before trading away Jamison.

It's not Mitch's MO when he's in a win now mode to get rid of someone like Jamison and keep people like clark, duhon and ebanks around when they are giving really nothing. Jamison at the very least can give us more than them so Mitch is going to "try" to keep him and get rid of the clutter first and then if something big comes along that involves Jamison then he might do that deal.

But otherwise Jamison is the last on Mitch's priority list of people to trade that's on our bench. If he was rebuilding, then maybe not, but he isn't he's looking for short contracts and people that can contribute "NOW" and he has that in Jamison. Especially with the injury problems of Gasol and Hill(which is why Jamison is valuable). Meanwhile Clark, Duhon(when Blake gets back) and Ebanks really don't offer anything, not even for people that may or may not get injured in the way Jamison would.

So as a GM, Mitch isn't gonna look to unload Jamison before them.

THAT is what I'm saying

[Lakers4Life]

Lol thanks for clarifying. That makes more sense and I see what you mean. Thinking of that Pau trade man we were so lucky. Haha