Started By
Message

re: Hollinger on the Status of the Pels

Posted on 1/2/22 at 7:18 am to
Posted by WhySoSerious
No.
Member since Jan 2014
769 posts
Posted on 1/2/22 at 7:18 am to
The problem w the Ball deal was it was a bad deal.
Graham is irrelevant because we could’ve had both.

[
quote:

Would we be better with him this season? I think so but

That should be the end of the conversation. Although he’s not overpaid, his contract is more team friendly every season, making him a better trade piece, if something better presents itself but the fact that you followed that with
quote:

that is more a failure on the team to fill the position than it is a credit to his skills.

Tells me that you’re unwilling to give Lonzo any credit for any success his teams have, despite evidence proving otherwise.
Posted by htran90
BC
Member since Dec 2012
30174 posts
Posted on 1/2/22 at 8:18 am to
quote:

Tells me that you’re unwilling to give Lonzo any credit for any success his teams have, despite evidence proving otherwise.


Lonzo is a solid role player, a 3rd or 4th option on offense.

That's exactly his role in Chicago.

Now being honest 20million is a lot for a role player, however, losing him for nothing might be worse.

We on the other hand need basketball talent overall.
Posted by CelticDog
Member since Apr 2015
42867 posts
Posted on 1/2/22 at 8:40 am to
quote:

Tells me that you’re unwilling to give Lonzo any credit for any success his teams have, despite evidence proving otherwise.


we saw him on pels.
improved during pels stint but not a guy you see succeeding in 2nd round action. the Vision: throws ball away on break with game on line trying for highlight when just getting a good shot is called for. he still cant take it to the hole like Rileys Heat men all do.
2 griffin was terrified of the agent.
was scared zo would do davis sit out.
Posted by hugo_boss
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2012
990 posts
Posted on 1/3/22 at 2:48 am to
quote:

The problem w the Ball deal was it was a bad deal.
Graham is irrelevant because we could’ve had both.


It's definitely relevant. Not getting a 1st for ball but giving a 1st for Graham is bad.

[

quote:
Would we be better with him this season? I think so but


quote:

That should be the end of the conversation. Although he’s not overpaid, his contract is more team friendly every season, making him a better trade piece, if something better presents itself but the fact that you followed that with


That is insanely silly logic. So a player making us better, no matter the cost, is automatically the right move and deserves no further discussion? So why not sign Austin Rivers to a 20 million dollar contract? Or Dennis Schrodinger or the myriad of other guards that would be an improvement to this team because we have some of the worst guard play in the league. That's not me comparing Ball to any of those players. Just saying that Ball being an improvement over what we currently have does not implicitly make resigning him the right move.

quote:
that is more a failure on the team to fill the position than it is a credit to his skills.


quote:

Tells me that you’re unwilling to give Lonzo any credit for any success his teams have, despite evidence proving otherwise


What evidence proving otherwise? The Lakers were trash with Lonzo leading the team and trash without him. We were trash with Lonzo leading the team and trash without him. The bulls look great this season. They look great with Lonzo and looked great without him. Maybe he is a catalyst for the team but I'm struggling to see what you think he has shown that proves he is the/a reason the team is playing well, especially well enough to be worth his contract.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram