Jump to content




Photo

Dwight says he played with "a bunch of nobodies" in Orlando


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#61 LakerGeezer

LakerGeezer

    Off The Bench

  • 1,787 posts
  • Joined: Jan 06, 2013
  • Location:North Korea
  • Fan Since:1990
  • Fav. Laker:Dennis Rodman

Posted March 06, 2013 - 12:13 PM

You mean the facts that speak against your own point. I can just quote your post to prove my point.

You posted people with inferior numbers saying you would rather pay them the max over a player who is out producing all of them while hobbled

Why don't you make it meaningful

Ok, I'll connect the dots for you.  There are 3 or 4 guys I would rather pay max $ to than Dwight.  "Max" $ is a relative term, depending on:  1.  length of NBA tenure,  2.  whether a player is switiching teams and  3.  current salary.

 

If the Lakers were to sign Dwight, "max" $ I believe is $117m for 5 years.  That's 23m+ annually.  For a 16 and 12 player.

 

"Max" for other guys the Lakers might be interested in is a DIFFERENT NUMBER and alot lower.  For a "veteran" big man changing teams, it is basically $14.5m for 4 years.  It can be more, and I fully confess that I dont completely grasp all the subtlties of the calculations. 

 

So, my posts above note other big men with different numbers ... some are similar to Dwight's, some are less.  That's only part of the analysis.  The other part is what you have to pay to get the production.

 

So, let's put it together now.  Assuming we could trade for any of these big men with their current deals in place (or Monroe with a "max" deal):

Horford:  similar production, 1/2 the price

Monroe:  slightly less production, 2/3 the price

Asik:  2/3 the production, 1/2 the price

Gasol:  2/3 the production, 2/3 the price



#62 bfc1125roy

bfc1125roy

    Superstar

  • 4,035 posts
  • Joined: Dec 10, 2011
  • Fan Since:2004
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted March 06, 2013 - 12:18 PM

Ok, I'll connect the dots for you.  There are 3 or 4 guys I would rather pay max $ to than Dwight.  "Max" $ is a relative term, depending on:  1.  length of NBA tenure,  2.  whether a player is switiching teams and  3.  current salary.

 

If the Lakers were to sign Dwight, "max" $ I believe is $117m for 5 years.  That's 23m+ annually.  For a 16 and 12 player.

 

"Max" for other guys the Lakers might be interested in is a DIFFERENT NUMBER and alot lower.  For a "veteran" big man changing teams, it is basically $14.5m for 4 years.  It can be more, and I fully confess that I dont completely grasp all the subtlties of the calculations. 

 

So, my posts above note other big men with different numbers ... some are similar to Dwight's, some are less.  That's only part of the analysis.  The other part is what you have to pay to get the production.

 

So, let's put it together now.  Assuming we could trade for any of these big men with their current deals in place (or Monroe with a "max" deal):

Horford:  similar production, 1/2 the price

Monroe:  slightly less production, 2/3 the price

Asik:  2/3 the production, 1/2 the price

Gasol:  2/3 the production, 2/3 the price

 

How many DPOYs do the above 4 players have combined? 



#63 LakerGeezer

LakerGeezer

    Off The Bench

  • 1,787 posts
  • Joined: Jan 06, 2013
  • Location:North Korea
  • Fan Since:1990
  • Fav. Laker:Dennis Rodman

Posted March 06, 2013 - 12:23 PM

How many DPOYs do the above 4 players have combined? 

Looking at the past  to predict the future works, sometimes.   If I carry your logic out, then we should sign Mutombo right now, he has more DPOY's than Dwight.

 

 If Orlando Dwight returns, maybe he's worth the premium, maybe.  Will he return?  I dont know.  I have not seen enough to merit taking the chance.  I'd rather pay less for similar offensieve production and a better defensive presence than we are getting now.



#64 last stand 2.0

last stand 2.0

    Legend

  • 19,132 posts
  • Joined: Jul 29, 2008
  • Location:LA

Posted March 06, 2013 - 12:43 PM

Is dikembe 27 years old
Posted Image

#65 Lakerace24

Lakerace24

    Sixth Man

  • 3,256 posts
  • Joined: Jun 12, 2012
  • Name:Matt
  • Fan Since:Birth
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted March 06, 2013 - 12:53 PM


The excuses for the clown are becoming quite comical.


You're so full of it. God it hurts my eyes whenever they wander over that hot mess you like to call a 'post'. How you haven't been banned yet is beyond me.

#66 LakerGeezer

LakerGeezer

    Off The Bench

  • 1,787 posts
  • Joined: Jan 06, 2013
  • Location:North Korea
  • Fan Since:1990
  • Fav. Laker:Dennis Rodman

Posted March 06, 2013 - 01:23 PM

Is dikembe 27 years old

 

 

Is dikembe 27 years old

Have Horford, Monroe, Gasol et al had back surgery, resulting in them playing at a level that is far below what we know to be their peaks? 

 

There are alot better arguments for wanting to keep Dwight, you guys just have not made them yet.



#67 Windu

Windu

    Shatterpoint

  • 43,096 posts
  • Joined: Apr 24, 2009
  • Name:Will
  • Fan Since:1999
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted March 06, 2013 - 03:09 PM

You keep DH unless you get offered a package you simply cannot refuse. We already knew he was coming off back surgery and we already knew he was a limited offensive player...yet we still made the move to get him on our team. He is an upgrade over Andrew Bynum in virtually every area...EXCEPT for offensive "prowess".

 

The problem is not with DH. It is and has been with Pau Gasol...in addition to having an incompetent head coach.


Pau Gasol is GONE


#68 Majesty

Majesty

    Grats on making the Raiderettes cuzzo!!

  • 37,140 posts
  • Joined: Dec 11, 2011
  • Name:Jay
  • Fan Since:1987
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe present, Magic past

Posted March 06, 2013 - 03:12 PM

Lets see, 3 years later anyone from that team is either no longer in the NBA. Still on the Magic leading it to the bottom of the barrel without Dwight or last off the bench somewhere else with barely any playing time..yep

Is Wayne Brady gonna have to Djokovic? - Robert Flores 


#69 Chad

Chad

    Kings

  • 3,328 posts
  • Joined: Nov 10, 2008
  • Location:Miami, Florida
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted March 06, 2013 - 03:14 PM

It's true.


¡Hala Madrid! Neymar Rules!  


#70 LakersGAFan

LakersGAFan

    The Don, Cappo & Consigliere'

  • 11,435 posts
  • Joined: Mar 17, 2009
  • Location:Tha ATL
  • Name:LT
  • Fan Since:When Magic crossed over the entire Warriors team in like 88. Chis Gatling looked like he was gonna cry.
  • Fav. Laker:KB

Posted March 06, 2013 - 03:17 PM

The realness is Dwights the best Center currently.

Dwight

Bynum (if he actually played, so just bypass bynum...lol)

M Gasol, and after Gasol the quality falls off big imo, but Id go with,

Chandler

Noah

Horford

Lopez

 

In the 90's Dwight would be under Alonzo Mourning and just ahead of Rik Smits.

Shaq
Hakeem

Robinson

Ewing

Duncan (if were facing reality that hes been a Center)

Dikembe

Alonzo

Dwight Howard

Rik Smits

Kevin Willis

Brad Daughtery

Divac

 

So hed be the 8th best Center then.

Heres the point. Alonzo and Smits have 0 rings. And they played on great teams with Reggie Miller and Larry Johnson, etc. Of course they had to deal with the Bulls dynasty. And Zo and Smits had to play head to head with all those centers that were better than them who won chips to.

 

Today Dwight is in a league of his own at the center position. For now anyways. So the core question would be is he good enough to be the franchise player that can disrupt the success of another teams dynasty....like Miami is trying to create for themselves.


Edited by LakersGAFan, March 06, 2013 - 03:17 PM.

KBdive_zpsa0338da3.jpg


#71 LakerGeezer

LakerGeezer

    Off The Bench

  • 1,787 posts
  • Joined: Jan 06, 2013
  • Location:North Korea
  • Fan Since:1990
  • Fav. Laker:Dennis Rodman

Posted March 06, 2013 - 04:01 PM

Lets see, 3 years later anyone from that team is either no longer in the NBA. Still on the Magic leading it to the bottom of the barrel without Dwight or last off the bench somewhere else with barely any playing time..yep

Majesty, please read the whole thread before maing these kind of comments.  You are alot sharper than this.



#72 last stand 2.0

last stand 2.0

    Legend

  • 19,132 posts
  • Joined: Jul 29, 2008
  • Location:LA

Posted March 06, 2013 - 07:34 PM

safe to say this guy sucks. should trade him for some mediocre centers making double digit millions. sounds like a plan


Posted Image

#73 LakerGeezer

LakerGeezer

    Off The Bench

  • 1,787 posts
  • Joined: Jan 06, 2013
  • Location:North Korea
  • Fan Since:1990
  • Fav. Laker:Dennis Rodman

Posted March 06, 2013 - 08:38 PM

safe to say this guy sucks. should trade him for some mediocre centers making double digit millions. sounds like a plan

Never said he sucks.  I guess when you cant win the debate, you must resort to hyperbole.



#74 Jackson

Jackson

    All-Star

  • 5,709 posts
  • Joined: Dec 10, 2011
  • Location:Honolulu, Hawaii
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant/Kareem/Sasha(LOL)

Posted March 06, 2013 - 08:39 PM

safe to say this guy sucks. should trade him for some mediocre centers making double digit millions. sounds like a plan

Shutup. He just finally showed up. Is that too much to ask?



#75 David Hillman

David Hillman

    Rookie

  • 527 posts
  • Joined: Jul 01, 2010
  • Name:David Hillman
  • Fan Since:1979
  • Fav. Laker:Kurt Rambis

Posted March 06, 2013 - 09:04 PM

You keep DH unless you get offered a package you simply cannot refuse. We already knew he was coming off back surgery and we already knew he was a limited offensive player...yet we still made the move to get him on our team. He is an upgrade over Andrew Bynum in virtually every area...EXCEPT for offensive "prowess".

 

The problem is not with DH. It is and has been with Pau Gasol...in addition to having an incompetent head coach.

 

   Here's the thing, though.  If you know you have a coach that won't use Howard ( and his limited skills ) on offense, should you pay him $117M?

 

   Would you, in fact, win more games if you could swap him for, say, Nikola Vucevic ( I realize this isn't a workable straight trade, I'm speaking hypothetically ).  With Vucevic, you'd get 4 ppg less, 1 rpg less, and 1.5 bpg less... but you'd save about $21M/year in salary ( pre-tax ).  Plus, Vucevic is 22, and getting better, while Howard has added remarkably little to his game in 9 years -- a game which is not likely to age well at all.

 

   Could you replace 4 ppg, 1 rpg, and 1.5 bpg for $21M or less?  Obviously, you could.  Could the Lakers' roster benefit from $21M spent outside the center position? Again, yeah.

 

   These are the questions that matter.  Vucevic is just one example.

 

   I, for one, will be shocked if Howard is playing like a $23M player after he turns 30.  Locking yourself into long-term deals with older players of limited effectiveness is how you kill your team.



#76 LakerGeezer

LakerGeezer

    Off The Bench

  • 1,787 posts
  • Joined: Jan 06, 2013
  • Location:North Korea
  • Fan Since:1990
  • Fav. Laker:Dennis Rodman

Posted March 06, 2013 - 09:12 PM

   Here's the thing, though.  If you know you have a coach that won't use Howard ( and his limited skills ) on offense, should you pay him $117M?

 

   Would you, in fact, win more games if you could swap him for, say, Nikola Vucevic ( I realize this isn't a workable straight trade, I'm speaking hypothetically ).  With Vucevic, you'd get 4 ppg less, 1 rpg less, and 1.5 bpg less... but you'd save about $21M/year in salary ( pre-tax ).  Plus, Vucevic is 22, and getting better, while Howard has added remarkably little to his game in 9 years -- a game which is not likely to age well at all.

 

   Could you replace 4 ppg, 1 rpg, and 1.5 bpg for $21M or less?  Obviously, you could.  Could the Lakers' roster benefit from $21M spent outside the center position? Again, yeah.

 

   These are the questions that matter.  Vucevic is just one example.

 

   I, for one, will be shocked if Howard is playing like a $23M player after he turns 30.  Locking yourself into long-term deals with older players of limited effectiveness is how you kill your team.

Stop the logic backed by facts! 



#77 Chad

Chad

    Kings

  • 3,328 posts
  • Joined: Nov 10, 2008
  • Location:Miami, Florida
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted March 06, 2013 - 09:16 PM

I'd rather be stuck with Dwight, instead of bringing in a player like Chris Mihm. Dwight is staying so get over it. He is our future. And, no I wouldn't rather have Nikola Vucevic.


Edited by Chad, March 06, 2013 - 09:18 PM.

¡Hala Madrid! Neymar Rules!  


#78 Windu

Windu

    Shatterpoint

  • 43,096 posts
  • Joined: Apr 24, 2009
  • Name:Will
  • Fan Since:1999
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted March 06, 2013 - 09:19 PM

Then the coach is the problem. Mike D'Antoni hasn't accomplished anything in this league to earn the benefit of the doubt. DH needs a full healthy season before we give up on him.

Pau Gasol is GONE


#79 LakerGeezer

LakerGeezer

    Off The Bench

  • 1,787 posts
  • Joined: Jan 06, 2013
  • Location:North Korea
  • Fan Since:1990
  • Fav. Laker:Dennis Rodman

Posted March 06, 2013 - 09:24 PM

Then the coach is the problem. Mike D'Antoni hasn't accomplished anything in this league to earn the benefit of the doubt. DH needs a full healthy season before we give up on him.

So can we sign him to a one year, incentive laden deal?



#80 BasketballIQ

BasketballIQ

    All-Star

  • 6,875 posts
  • Joined: Dec 29, 2012
  • Name:2 Jordans and 2 Steves
  • Fav. Laker:24

Posted March 06, 2013 - 09:29 PM

I don't understand the point...

 

A) Do you think Dwight was the best player on those Magic teams that made the playoffs easily for the past 5 seasons

 

B) Do you think Phil Jackson knows basketball and the things that it entails( like his comment on Dwight's back)

 

C) Did you  pay attention to how being out of shape affected notable NBA players after the lock-out?(Amare,Odom,Felton,Metta)

 

D) Do you think Dwight is the REASON why the Lakers have not been as good as they were last year with a far weaker bench and a weaker starting line-up with Kobe and Metta having down seasons?

 

e) Do you think Hill's size and Gasol's skill/height would change any of the losses. Lets say it affected two losses only

 

instead of 31-31, we are 33-29, now if the chemistry was knocked off by injuries and that affected 2 more games or so

 

35-27






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users