21 replies to this topic

[anon62]

If Los Angeles just offered him a qualifying offer and resigned him, we wouldn't have this issue in the first place!
http://games.espn.go...tradeId=82r3wvl Send Blake and use Trade Exception, then give the nets a pick.

[Hayter]

blake > farmar

[EvenSteven]

Hayter, on 18 February 2012 - 05:57 AM, said:

blake > farmar

I disagree.  Farmar is a better PG and has younger legs and  could defend better than Blake.
I would guess that Kobe didn't like Farmar and so he had to go.

[anon62]

EvenSteven, on 18 February 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

I disagree.  Farmar is a better PG and has younger legs and  could defend better than Blake.
I would guess that Kobe didn't like Farmar and so he had to go.

Kobe had nothing to do with it. Not sending a qualifying offer to be able to re-sign Jordan Farmar was all just an attempt to use the $4M Mid-Level Exception on free agents of that season, which they ended up using on Steve Blake.

I believe they were targeting Travis Outlaw, Wesley Matthews, and perhaps Anthony Morrow at the time, but that sure was a bust.

Why did LAL spend it on Steve Blake though? Farmar is obviously a better long-term investment compared to Blake. Maybe Farmar already agreed to a deal with the Nets by the time?

Anyway, Farmar would've been the player the Lakers needed. He has no problem with familiarity, since he's played with the Lakers, He's a better scorer than ANYONE the Lakers can get through Free Agency barring a Trade that would bring LAL a point guard for Gasol, AND he's a proven durable player, since he was playing full-time with the Lakers AND the D-fenders during his run with the team, perfect for a Compressed Season like the NBA is having now.

[Hayter]

who cares about either of them?  none of them are good enough to make a difference.  if one is better than the other, it's not by much. their career stats are pretty much identical.

i remember when farmar was with the lakers, laker fans couldn't wait to get rid of him.. now what is this talk of wanting him back?  he can't play any better defense than blake anyway.  all the good pgs used to abuse him.  at least blake is a team guy..  farmar thought he was way better than what he was and always had problems with phil.

[EvenSteven]

Hayter, on 18 February 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

who cares about either of them?  none of them are good enough to make a difference.  if one is better than the other, it's not by much. their career stats are pretty much identical.

i remember when farmar was with the lakers, laker fans couldn't wait to get rid of him.. now what is this talk of wanting him back?  he can't play any better defense than blake anyway.  all the good pgs used to abuse him.  at least blake is a team guy..  farmar thought he was way better than what he was and always had problems with phil.

Not trying to make a star out of Farmar or anything, but when Williams was out for NJ, he was averaging something like 15 and 11 assists.  He would be a vast improvement over the stationary object that is nailed to the floor, AKA Derek Fisher.

[anon62]

Hayter, on 18 February 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

who cares about either of them?  none of them are good enough to make a difference.  if one is better than the other, it's not by much. their career stats are pretty much identical.

i remember when farmar was with the lakers, laker fans couldn't wait to get rid of him.. now what is this talk of wanting him back?  he can't play any better defense than blake anyway.  all the good pgs used to abuse him.  at least blake is a team guy..  farmar thought he was way better than what he was and always had problems with phil.

Wait, what? That's all bull. Phil and Farmar did not have problems. Phil's only gripe on Farmar is that he isn't aggressive enough at times, especially when Kobe was off the floor.

Why are you telling people all these BS? "He thinks he was way better than what he was"? Would a guy who keeps saying there's a lot he needs to improve on would SAY such a thing?

I'm sure Blake is a great team guy, but Farmar is a younger, and more durable. Fisher and Blake are old, and they can't help it, if one of them goes down and the team struggles even further.

Besides, even if Farmar did not immediately improve the Lakers, it's much better to have a PG than depend on a rotation of only Fisher and Goudlock when Blake was out.

[not dennis rodman]

This what i've been saying since June. Being a year and a half away from the Lakers has only allowed him to develop more as a player. He's young and can provide that extra spark. Of course he's no DWill, but we barely would have to give up anything for him. So why not? Especially given the facts that evensteven stated

[Dean Darkblue]

EvenSteven, on 18 February 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

I disagree.  Farmar is a better PG and has younger legs and  could defend better than Blake.
I would guess that Kobe didn't like Farmar and so he had to go.

Now this kind of bullshit is what really gets me.



As for Farmar, no, he's a shoot-first PG, we don't need him.

[anon62]

Dean Darkblue, on 19 February 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

Now this kind of bullshit is what really gets me.



As for Farmar, no, he's a shoot-first PG, we don't need him.

Okay first, what are you talking about? When he's the primary ball handler, even in New Jersey, he doesn't look to take the shot. When he shoots the ball it's a spot up shot. As the ball handler in the pick & roll, he looks to pass it to the roll guy, or the open corner 3.

That's pretty much a typical textbook point guard if you ask me. He's not all-star, but he's better than what we have now. As for defense, wouldn't he be better right now if Mike Brown coaches him up?

[Dean Darkblue]

anon62, on 19 February 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

Okay first, what are you talking about? When he's the primary ball handler, even in New Jersey, he doesn't look to take the shot. When he shoots the ball it's a spot up shot. As the ball handler in the pick & roll, he looks to pass it to the roll guy, or the open corner 3.

That's pretty much a typical textbook point guard if you ask me. He's not all-star, but he's better than what we have now. As for defense, wouldn't he be better right now if Mike Brown coaches him up?

You're probably right.  But my comment was based on who our other options were - Sessions,etc.  I guess at this juncture, anyone is better than what we have.

[Nanizm]

I was one that wanted both Farmar and S.Brown out of here but that was with the notion that they would be replaced for something better. Now that they are gone and theyre replacements havent worked, of course having them back would look like better options. But neither makes the Lakers significantly better.

Farmar is actually having a good year in NJ this year. Even better than his 2nd season with the Lakers which got him the extension.

The reason the Lakers didnt make him a qualifying offer and keep his is because they werent interested in Farmar. He was horrible defensively, want a good playmaker and inconsistant offensively. Also, Farmar was looking for a bigger role on a team, so it was mutual.

[Hayter]

anon62, on 18 February 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

Wait, what? That's all bull. Phil and Farmar did not have problems. Phil's only gripe on Farmar is that he isn't aggressive enough at times, especially when Kobe was off the floor.

Why are you telling people all these BS? "He thinks he was way better than what he was"? Would a guy who keeps saying there's a lot he needs to improve on would SAY such a thing?

I'm sure Blake is a great team guy, but Farmar is a younger, and more durable. Fisher and Blake are old, and they can't help it, if one of them goes down and the team struggles even further.

Besides, even if Farmar did not immediately improve the Lakers, it's much better to have a PG than depend on a rotation of only Fisher and Goudlock when Blake was out.

phil and farmar did not get along.  well documented my friend.

http://www.lakersnat...ksons-doghouse/

[anon62]

Hayter, on 20 February 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

phil and farmar did not get along.  well documented my friend.

http://www.lakersnat...ksons-doghouse/

There is no part in that report that says anything about the relationship between Phil and Farmar being sour. It's an article that says Phil isn't utilizing Farmar.

If anything, the article shows how high Phil's standards are on new talent. But as far as saying that those two aren't coexisting is a stretch. Also, the article in that post doesn't say what you've been backstabbing Farmar with.

Let's break it down:
You said: "He always had problems with Phil"
This is the only one of your arguement that MIGHT be true, seeing as Farmar couldn't get enough playing time. To even make matters worse, Phil kept inserting Shannon Brown in to eat the minutes available at point during the playoffs for defensive purposes, which only made it further more frustrating for Farmar. He's been playing on borrowed time with his days in the Lakers when he shouldn't be at all.

You said: "Laker fans wanted to get rid of him"
No part in that link says they wanted to get rid of him besides a poster on this forum who was disagreeing with the article.

You said: "Farmar thought he was way better than what he was"
No part in the article on your link was even quoting Farmar, where'd you get the idea he said this? YOUR assumption? Your not Farmar, so how do YOU know how good he really think he is?

But when all is said and done, the fact of the matter is, Phil is not on the team anymore.

Anyway, having only 1 part of your statement right doesn't make everything you said about Farmar true.

[LAKERGANG_X6]

Are we that desperate for a PG? I guess so.

[?QuestionMark?]

Nanizm, on 20 February 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

The reason the Lakers didnt make him a qualifying offer and keep his is because they werent interested in Farmar. He was horrible defensively, want a good playmaker and inconsistant offensively. Also, Farmar was looking for a bigger role on a team, so it was mutual.

This.  

Getting Farmar is like putting a band-aid on a broken leg.  He'd help a bit because anything is an upgrade over Fisher.  But he's not the difference maker.  

Just like Nanizm said, Farmar wasn't that good when he was here.  He was a PG with a scorer's mentality, gave little effort defensively (gave up on a play after getting beat), and was at his best when he dominated the ball -- something he can't do with Kobe, Gasol, and Bynum.  

LA could improve their chances without trading for Farmar.  Mike Brown just needs to sack up and bench Fisher and start either Blake or Goudelock.  Goudelock was probably the 4th best player on the team while Blake was out and now he's getting 7 minutes a game.

[Hayter]

anon62, on 18 February 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

Kobe had nothing to do with it. Not sending a qualifying offer to be able to re-sign Jordan Farmar was all just an attempt to use the $4M Mid-Level Exception on free agents of that season, which they ended up using on Steve Blake.

I believe they were targeting Travis Outlaw, Wesley Matthews, and perhaps Anthony Morrow at the time, but that sure was a bust.

Why did LAL spend it on Steve Blake though? Farmar is obviously a better long-term investment compared to Blake. Maybe Farmar already agreed to a deal with the Nets by the time?

Anyway, Farmar would've been the player the Lakers needed. He has no problem with familiarity, since he's played with the Lakers, He's a better scorer than ANYONE the Lakers can get through Free Agency barring a Trade that would bring LAL a point guard for Gasol, AND he's a proven durable player, since he was playing full-time with the Lakers AND the D-fenders during his run with the team, perfect for a Compressed Season like the NBA is having now.

blah blah blah..

fact:  farmar didn't like phil's triangle cause he thought it restricted him from being the player that he is.

fact:  phil didn't like farmar trying to do too much on the court

fact:  phil benched farmar in the first series of play offs in 2010 to send him a message.

fact:  phil's unhappiness with farmar and vice versa was very well documented as they often butted headed was reported and talked about by laker insiders.  and if phil liked him so much, why didn't they offer him a contract?

fact:  more people than not, on this forum as well as your typical laker fan, wanted to get rid of farmar.  

oh by the way..  for those who think farmar is better than blake, blake says tonights game was for you.  although I will say farmer has better pg skills than blake but blake is a better shooter.  defense wise, they're equal, they both suck.

[LAKERGANG_X6]

?QuestionMark?, on 20 February 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

This.  

Getting Farmar is like putting a band-aid on a broken leg.  He'd help a bit because anything is an upgrade over Fisher.  But he's not the difference maker.  

Just like Nanizm said, Farmar wasn't that good when he was here.  He was a PG with a scorer's mentality, gave little effort defensively (gave up on a play after getting beat), and was at his best when he dominated the ball -- something he can't do with Kobe, Gasol, and Bynum.  

LA could improve their chances without trading for Farmar.  Mike Brown just needs to sack up and bench Fisher and start either Blake or Goudelock.  Goudelock was probably the 4th best player on the team while Blake was out and now he's getting 7 minutes a game.

Mike Brown is effin up by not giving Glock them minutes he was playing. He has a lot of potential.

[Archer]

LAKERGANG_X6, on 20 February 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

Mike Brown is effin up by not giving Glock them minutes he was playing. He has a lot of potential.

+1 I totally agree with you. A gang of people have been saying the same thing, but I don't know either why Brown doesn't play this kid more. He always impresses when he's out there. Start Goudelock instead of Fisher and the Lakers will bring in at least 55+ points by halftime.  

[Nanizm]

I would rather have Joe Crispin back, than Farmar.

Whats Shammond Williams doing these days?