offtheheezy wrote:Probably would've gotten better offers with a trade block for Lane
LAKERS / SPURS
Moderators: UOducksTK1, Zyme, lukeyrid13, Oregon Ownage
- Boom
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 5805
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:32 pm
- GM: Houston Rockets
Re: LAKERS / SPURS
- UOducksTK1
- Site Admin

- Posts: 40687
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
- GM: Boston Celtics GM
- Location: Portland, Oregon
- the goat
- Freshman
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:40 pm
- GM: Los Angeles Lakers
Re: LAKERS / SPURS
Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
You guys make some decent points (Dawkins is not just average, disagree), but it's funny the loudest are also the teams whose positions would be most threatened
You guys make some decent points (Dawkins is not just average, disagree), but it's funny the loudest are also the teams whose positions would be most threatened
Lakers GM
- duckyoubeavers
- Sophomore
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:35 am
- GM: Toronto Raptors GM
Re: LAKERS / SPURS
definitely prefer the lakers side of this. i gave up more than this for an aging moses
Raptors GM
-
Skyhooker
- Junior
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:29 pm
- GM: Philadelphia 76ers
Re: LAKERS / SPURS
Lane is a top 10-15 player.
Moses was the best player and still the goat.
Moses was the best player and still the goat.
- Craig
- Senior
- Posts: 2418
- Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:16 pm
- GM: Phoenix Suns GM
Re: LAKERS / SPURS
It's funny the only one who thinks it's a good Lane trade is the one getting Lanethe goat wrote:Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
You guys make some decent points (Dawkins is not just average, disagree), but it's funny the loudest are also the teams whose positions would be most threatened
SUNS GM
- the goat
- Freshman
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:40 pm
- GM: Los Angeles Lakers
Re: LAKERS / SPURS
Obviously I think it's a good trade for me bc I would've been willing to give up some more stuff, like a pick or a prospect or a role player. But I'm not going to negotiate against myself.Craig wrote:It's funny the only one who thinks it's a good Lane trade is the one getting Lanethe goat wrote:Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
You guys make some decent points (Dawkins is not just average, disagree), but it's funny the loudest are also the teams whose positions would be most threatened
And nothing towards you specifically, but where was the mob when the Raptors got swindled for Steve Johnson? (Or other similar deals, this came to my mind first) Let's keep the same energy. Yea Spurs probably didn't extract max value for Lane, but it happens even to the best traders.
Lakers GM
-
bellsduck
- Senior
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:40 am
- GM: Utah Jazz
Re: LAKERS / SPURS
There's been plenty of outrage on trades. This isn't even close to reaching the level of outrage on other trades - Steve Johnson included.the goat wrote:And nothing towards you specifically, but where was the mob when the Raptors got swindled for Steve Johnson? (Or other similar deals, this came to my mind first) Let's keep the same energy. Yea Spurs probably didn't extract max value for Lane, but it happens even to the best traders.Craig wrote:It's funny the only one who thinks it's a good Lane trade is the one getting Lanethe goat wrote:Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
You guys make some decent points (Dawkins is not just average, disagree), but it's funny the loudest are also the teams whose positions would be most threatened
This doesn't even seem like outrage. It seems more like a bunch of teams scratching their heads.
- Foxyg1396
- Five Star Recruit
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:27 pm
- GM: Denver Nuggets
Re: LAKERS / SPURS
The biggest thing for me is in the past when dealing with “league owned” teams it’s nearly impossible to get trades through. Let alone trades that favor the gm and not the “league owned” team.the goat wrote:Obviously I think it's a good trade for me bc I would've been willing to give up some more stuff, like a pick or a prospect or a role player. But I'm not going to negotiate against myself.Craig wrote:It's funny the only one who thinks it's a good Lane trade is the one getting Lanethe goat wrote:Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
You guys make some decent points (Dawkins is not just average, disagree), but it's funny the loudest are also the teams whose positions would be most threatened
And nothing towards you specifically, but where was the mob when the Raptors got swindled for Steve Johnson? (Or other similar deals, this came to my mind first) Let's keep the same energy. Yea Spurs probably didn't extract max value for Lane, but it happens even to the best traders.
- the goat
- Freshman
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:40 pm
- GM: Los Angeles Lakers
Re: LAKERS / SPURS
Oh so y'all just mad bc I read The Art of the Deal?Foxyg1396 wrote:The biggest thing for me is in the past when dealing with “league owned” teams it’s nearly impossible to get trades through. Let alone trades that favor the gm and not the “league owned” team.the goat wrote:Obviously I think it's a good trade for me bc I would've been willing to give up some more stuff, like a pick or a prospect or a role player. But I'm not going to negotiate against myself.Craig wrote:It's funny the only one who thinks it's a good Lane trade is the one getting Lanethe goat wrote:Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
You guys make some decent points (Dawkins is not just average, disagree), but it's funny the loudest are also the teams whose positions would be most threatened
And nothing towards you specifically, but where was the mob when the Raptors got swindled for Steve Johnson? (Or other similar deals, this came to my mind first) Let's keep the same energy. Yea Spurs probably didn't extract max value for Lane, but it happens even to the best traders.
Lakers GM
- Foxyg1396
- Five Star Recruit
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:27 pm
- GM: Denver Nuggets
Re: LAKERS / SPURS
Not at all, I think every gm has made both good and bad trades that favor both sides. This is the first deal with a “public” team that doesn’t HEAVILY favor that team. It’s a great deal for you, but it’s not like you’re preying on a new or bad gmthe goat wrote:Oh so y'all just mad bc I read The Art of the Deal?Foxyg1396 wrote:The biggest thing for me is in the past when dealing with “league owned” teams it’s nearly impossible to get trades through. Let alone trades that favor the gm and not the “league owned” team.the goat wrote:Obviously I think it's a good trade for me bc I would've been willing to give up some more stuff, like a pick or a prospect or a role player. But I'm not going to negotiate against myself.Craig wrote:It's funny the only one who thinks it's a good Lane trade is the one getting Lanethe goat wrote:Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
You guys make some decent points (Dawkins is not just average, disagree), but it's funny the loudest are also the teams whose positions would be most threatened
And nothing towards you specifically, but where was the mob when the Raptors got swindled for Steve Johnson? (Or other similar deals, this came to my mind first) Let's keep the same energy. Yea Spurs probably didn't extract max value for Lane, but it happens even to the best traders.
- dd10snoop28
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 5046
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:06 am
- GM: New Jersey Nets GM
- Location: Portland, Oregon
- The Bean Regime
- Senior
- Posts: 2644
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 5:57 pm
- GM: Minnesota Timberwolves GM
Re: LAKERS / SPURS
Dang Lakers getting personally attacked now. 
- Foxyg1396
- Five Star Recruit
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:27 pm
- GM: Denver Nuggets
Re: LAKERS / SPURS
Like when the Kings were publicly owned, in order for me to have gotten Schmidt, ownage wanted Barkley and 2-3 1sts…..
- lukeyrid13
- All-American
- Posts: 10475
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:58 am
- GM: Portland TrailBlazers
Re: LAKERS / SPURS
If Lane were on the Celtics, this wouldn't get any public opinion.
Public opinion should be noted when it comes to a league owned team, and I think there is a strong consensus outside of LA that this isn't in favor of the league owned team.
I'd almost argue that the Lakers should give up a 1st to meet league owned criteria, but it's not a huge deal overall.
Public opinion should be noted when it comes to a league owned team, and I think there is a strong consensus outside of LA that this isn't in favor of the league owned team.
I'd almost argue that the Lakers should give up a 1st to meet league owned criteria, but it's not a huge deal overall.

