What's new
By:

The way to get a star

MDAV28 said:
When has this happened without a "star" already on the team?
Click to expand...

Happens all the time. The Jazz have better teams and talent than many who have acquired "stars"


Star-less Suns had 29 wins and no allstars when they signed Nash in 2004 (got them to first seed, 60 wins)
Harden was traded to a star-less Rockets.
Deron was traded to star-less Nets.
Carmelo was traded to the star-less Knicks
Kidd was traded to a star-less Nets (26 game improvement)
Star-less Kings signed Vlade, moved them into the playoffs
Star-less Wizards signed Arenas in 2003.

That's just off the top of my head.
 
I'd trade Favors/Hayward/#12 to LA for Nance/Williams/#2

I could absolutely see the Lakers biting on this. If they sign Derozen as well, which is sounding pretty likely, that would give them a pretty legit lineup of:

PG: Russell
SG: Derozen
SF: Hayward
PF: Randle
C: Favors

That's a team I'd be afraid of playing in the next few years for sure.
 
silesian said:
Happens all the time. The Jazz have better teams and talent than many who have acquired "stars"


Star-less Suns had 29 wins and no allstars when they signed Nash in 2004 (got them to first seed, 60 wins)
Harden was traded to a star-less Rockets.
Deron was traded to star-less Nets.
Carmelo was traded to the star-less Knicks
Kidd was traded to a star-less Nets (26 game improvement)
Star-less Kings signed Vlade, moved them into the playoffs
Star-less Wizards signed Arenas in 2003.

That's just off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

First of all you said nothing about trades. Sign implies FA, second of all you said "championship-hungry", were these guys going to these teams for championships?
 
MDAV28 said:
First of all you said nothing about trades. Sign implies FA, second of all you said "championship-hungry", were these guys going to these teams for championships?
Click to expand...

I was answering the specific question as to whether you could add a star to a team that did not have a star -- the answer is clearly yes.

The basic concept holds true whether you sign a FA or get one in a trade.

You see FAs sign on to teams with a shot to win a title pretty regularly.

Just need to add up several tactical pieces together to sum up to a cohesive and reasonable strategy.

Basic concept is that it is a multiple move strategy. First build a good core, then take it to the next level. Lindsay talks about this all the time. Parlaying assets to improve talent level, etc.
 
David Stern said:
I'd trade Favors/Hayward/#12 to LA for Nance/Williams/#2

I could absolutely see the Lakers biting on this. If they sign Derozen as well, which is sounding pretty likely, that would give them a pretty legit lineup of:

PG: Russell
SG: Derozen
SF: Hayward
PF: Randle
C: Favors

That's a team I'd be afraid of playing in the next few years for sure.
Click to expand...
I can't think of who Williams is.
 
David Stern said:
I'd trade Favors/Hayward/#12 to LA for Nance/Williams/#2

I could absolutely see the Lakers biting on this. If they sign Derozen as well, which is sounding pretty likely, that would give them a pretty legit lineup of:

PG: Russell
SG: Derozen
SF: Hayward
PF: Randle
C: Favors

That's a team I'd be afraid of playing in the next few years for sure.
Click to expand...

They might do it if they're getting Durant, it puts them on the map as an instant contender and don't have to wait 5 years for a Simmons or Ingram to enter their prime.
Derozan...eh...they know it takes at least one superstar and are now hand cuffed financially to go get any other free agents.
 
Broncster said:
Lou Williams, I assume he is just there to makes salaries work.
Click to expand...
I see. I kind of like him. One of the best bench players in the league at times during his career.
 
The reason I didn't put Lou Williams in the original post and floated a possibility of Russell (along with the reason I didn't include the #12 pick) is that if the Lakers were to go for something like this, I'd think they'd decide to go all in. And it would only make sense for the Jazz to go all in as well.

For the next few years, Lou Williams still helps Lakers more than Russell (presuming the Lakers were able to cobble together a solid core of 25-30 year olds).

And if the Jazz decided to reset with a core of 19-24 year olds (again, it wouldn't be my preference, but it's an interesting possibility), there's no reason to want Lou Williams around.

But on reflection, I probably overestimated how easily the locker-room issues might lead the Lakers to cut ties with Russell.
 
Although I will say that getting rid of the salary of either Williams or Russell would be key (if my rough estimates are right) to the Lakers being able to chase Durant plus one other major free agent this summer if they obtained Hayward & Favors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top