Page 1 of 1
Quick question
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:33 pm
by Dalakerbox
During this off season has anyone heard why the Lakers and Rockets didn't just execute a trade of Artest and Ariza to save the MLE which could have really helped both teams improve (mostly Houston). If Houston had their MLE the could have offered David Lee more money for the one year than New York is offering, or could have gone after someone else that they could have later used as a trade piece to get a true big over in Houston. I mean I like our off season move, and think we are really really strong but Nate Robinson and Sessions were still waiting for a team. I'm just saying. Or does it not even matter and I just need something to talk about suffering from lack of BBall info?
Re: Quick question
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:38 pm
by Slava
We had no use of MLE money and we did not have to help them get someone after going through 7 games in the playoffs.
Re: Quick question
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:38 pm
by Dalakerbox
I could live with that reply hahahaha
Re: Quick question
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:53 pm
by DubaLakers
It's just beyond sick that LAL have Lamar coming off the bench with a more loaded starting 5, this year LAL should be a heavy favorite. Meanwhile either CLE or ORL is gonna be bloodied by BOS and the team that doesn't go thru BOS will liekly meet LAL in the final. I think it's a CLE V. LAL Final. BOS to me will be like DET from a few years ago, just will lose steam in the playoffs due to age. I'd prefer to see BOS for the revenge factor, but I think age will finally catch them.
Re: Quick question
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:14 pm
by lakersfanatic
I think it was such a quick decision thing that they didn't have time to really think things thru. Artest for cheap?? The spontaneous transaction even caught ariza off guard. Plus the rockets would have benefitted more with their MLE then we would have...Mcgrady looks like hes coming back full throttle.. we don't want to improve their roster anymore hehe.
Re: Quick question
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:19 pm
by LA-LA-Land
DubaLakers wrote:It's just beyond sick that LAL have Lamar coming off the bench with a more loaded starting 5, this year LAL should be a heavy favorite. Meanwhile either CLE or ORL is gonna be bloodied by BOS and the team that doesn't go thru BOS will liekly meet LAL in the final. I think it's a CLE V. LAL Final. BOS to me will be like DET from a few years ago, just will lose steam in the playoffs due to age. I'd prefer to see BOS for the revenge factor, but I think age will finally catch them.
Now, now. Let's not get too cocky. We have to go through a loaded WC as well. It should be a bloody (yet highly entertaining) playoff race this year!

Re: Quick question
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:48 pm
by Pablo Escobar
Lakers n Spurs in the wcf and we always hand it to them no bruce bowen to cover kobe if thats what u call 2 yrs ago when he destroyed him they are always a threat but were a deeper team and i hope we get celtics after that embarassin loss to them i wud luv to sweep them
Re: Quick question
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:36 am
by dockingsched
trade doesn't work straight up. different players would need to be added, mitch said it wasn't worth the trouble. they couldn't risk anything going wrong.
Re: Quick question
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:44 am
by Gus McCrae
I heard Mitch talk about it 710 with mason/ireland, he said that once you decide to do sign and trade instead of FA signing, things get complicated and then you're relying on the both FA's, the other team's front office and both agents to all work together. HOU could throw a monkey wrench in if they want, not to mention someone else could come in and offer a better deal for Artest. With what Artest wanted, the FA signing was the best way to ensure we got him.
Re: Quick question
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:42 am
by That Nicka
dcash4 wrote:trade doesn't work straight up.
why not? if they both signed for MLE type money (maybe a bit more) why would other players have to be added.... It would have been sick if we could have gotten Artest and then sign Sessions with MLE lol... I know I'm greedy but Sessions is going to be hella good
Re: Quick question
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:31 am
by dockingsched
it didn't work because ariza's big raise made him byc.
Re: Quick question
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:23 am
by ShowtimeFan
SoCAL24 wrote:I heard Mitch talk about it 710 with mason/ireland, he said that once you decide to do sign and trade instead of FA signing, things get complicated and then you're relying on the both FA's, the other team's front office and both agents to all work together. HOU could throw a monkey wrench in if they want, not to mention someone else could come in and offer a better deal for Artest. With what Artest wanted, the FA signing was the best way to ensure we got him.
I heard the same interview and this is exactly what Mitch said, I also suspect that this was a way for Mitch to screw with Ariza's Agent as well, but Mitch would never go on record as saying such a thing!
Re: Quick question
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:27 am
by Mamba Venom
If we did it that way Artest would have made nearly 3 mil more per. Artest is mad at the Rockets over this... I think it was the Lakers idea. .. this might be the time bomb
Re: Quick question
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:31 pm
by Dr Aki
ariza was byc and contracts wouldve hard to matchup...
rockets didnt even use their MLE, they used an injury exception, they had no interest in helping the lakers retain their MLE even if it was cosmetic in nature
Re: Quick question
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:48 pm
by joe.linnen
I would have loved to do a S&T for Artest and Ariza. Savings us our MLE for another player would have been nice. I liked the idea of Sessions or Robinson a lot. Oh well water under the bridge....
Re: Quick question
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:54 pm
by joe.linnen
I would have loved to do a S&T for Artest and Ariza. Savings us our MLE for another player would have been nice. I liked the idea of Sessions or Robinson a lot. Oh well water under the bridge....