Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Originally posted by TheGore49er:
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Originally posted by TheGore49er:
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Originally posted by StOnEy333:
Originally posted by JustinMT:
[tweet [https://twitter.com/BillSimmons/status/1146522914318983168]https://twitter.com/BillSimmons/status/1146522914318983168]
What is who has a worse FO than the Lakers
I dont understand how a FO that got Bron and AD, and still kept Kuzma, and might even land Kawahi is bad. If any other team got these type of players their GM would be called amazing.
There's always drama with the lakers, and they always win either way. 80s team, 2000s team, all had a lot of drama and it didnt matter.
They landed those guys because of the laker name (and even the AD trade it's debatable if it was a wise move considering what they gave up). This current FO is trash
So NO traded AD to the Lakers bc NO likes the Lakers organizations history?... And what about Kuzma, what does that have to do with the Lakers legacy? Also, i thought that Ingram and Ball sucked, so how did we give up a lot? And if you don't think they suck, this FO drafted them, can't be that terrible then.
You are right. This lakers FO is a finely tuned machine lol.
Never said that either, just dont think they are horrible. They got s**t done these past 3 offseasons, drama or not. Now Boston, they f**ked up. People should be laighing at them. But its Boston and espn wouldn't dare go after them. Hayward contract, Kyrie, not getting AD, letting Rozier walk for nothing, and now hoping Kemba, who barely even makes the playoffs, is their answer.
But i can see why you think Lakers FO sucks. When your team sings players like Barnes and Cory Joseph, who needs Bron and AD, and possibly Kawhi.