Yi's holdout is embarrassing the Chinese

A series of post in this thread on LakersGround.net on 8/28/07.

LakerJam wrote:
Sorry, but I don't get the whole, "embarrass his country" argument - especially when it's HIS COUNTRY that wants him in another market. Chinese citizens don't just decide to sit out on their own, they follow the instructions of their government. If he sits out, it's by THEIR design and it's not an embarrassment unless THEY decide it is. Either way, it's not Yi's call.

From Hyphen Magazine, "Asian America Unabridged":

so far, Yi is doing a good job of undermining China's paragon of hard work and determination. Yi's outright refusal to even communicate with the Bucks is downright disheartening and a sobering wake-up call. The NBA is not exactly brimming with Asian players, and Yi has a chance to tie together China with America in a way that not even Yao could. Even at 7', Yi relates more to the average basketball player than "The Great Wall" because of his style and flair. Yet, he spurns the opportunity to play for an NBA team, creating clouds of doubt over future Asian-based basketball players ("Do we really want to draft him? Remember what happened with that Yi Jianlian kid?").

From Slam Online:

The (Chinese) people have spoken: A online poll recently revealed that 68% of the 9,000 people that were polled want Yi Jianlian to sign with the Bucks.

“Fegan will hamper Yi’s future,” former national team coach Qian Chenghai was quoted as saying in yesterday’s state-run China Daily newspaper. “I don’t think Yi refused to join the Bucks; it is Fegan who doesn’t want him to join.

“We don’t want to see Yi destroy his reputation in the NBA and return to the Chinese Basketball Association. That’s horrible.”

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

LA_Lakers_Rule wrote:
^ wondered about that as well. All reports indicate that the Chinese government does not want Yi in Milwaukee but instead a higher profile city.

Chinese government wants him in Milwaukee, but it's not their decision. From Spot-On:

The first basketballer to go to the NBA, Wang Zhizhi, had to get permission from his army team. Yao Ming had to deal with Chinese Basketball Administration (whom he once sued for violating his endorsement rights). Yi is blocked not by military men or politicians, but by businessmen. “The Chinese basketball authorities have become a lot more open in the past couple years,” says a sport editor of a major Chinese news magazine who has followed his case. “Now the rest is up to Team Yi.”

The Bucks didn’t quite get this. In another ironic twist, it’s the U.S. ball club that turned to official diplomacy, rather than the backroom bargaining of the free market that's come to run China. Conveniently, the team owner, Sen. Herb Kohl, has been a friend of China. He has a record of generally supporting the country on key issues such as most-favored nation trading status, and the department stores that bear his family name are filled with wares made in Yi's home province. Soon after the draft, Kohl personally wrote a letter inviting Yi to tour Milwaukee. Later, according to the sport marketing exec, the Bucks tried to use Kohl’s political connections to influence the Yi camp. “But they [Chinese officials] said, know, ‘Hey we don’t represent Yi Jianlian,’” says the exec. “The Bucks wanted to rattle some cages. But in China you got to know what cages you’re rattling.”

More on how the Chinese want Yi to go to Milwaukee from the same source:

Alas Team Yi’s fighting a losing public relations battle. Virtually everyone, save Yi’s American agent and his Cantonese team – his biggest and most powerful stakeholders – thinks Yi should sign and suit up with the Bucks this season. NBA rules dictate that if he is to play in the league next year, he must. The 2008 Chinese Olympics squad clearly needs him, as well and Chinese basketball authorities granted him unprecedented permission to join the entire pre-draft road show, fully anticipating that he would. The vast majority of Chinese fans, Internet polls and bulletin board have shown, are vehemently pushing him to go to Milwaukee. The head of the Chinese Basketball Association even said last week he would travel there to help resolve the deadlock.

Lakers trade targets and their timings

Posted on LakersGround.net on 8/28/07.

Lots of posters are disappointed that the Lakers haven't made any big deals this summer. My impression is that the timing has been right for the Lakers to trade for the players they have targeted. Here are what I think those targets are based upon rumors we have heard and when I think a trade is most likely to happen:

Jermaine O'Neal of the Pacers near the trade deadline
The Pacers are coming off a 35-47 after a 41-41 season. They are a small market team and have the 9th highest payroll in the NBA. They have a new coach and point to their initial success after the trade with the Warriors for reasons of optimism. My guess is that the Lakers FO think that the Pacers aren't going to make the playoffs (and lots of bloggers and ESPN expertsp agree). If the Pacers realize before the trade deadline that they aren't going to make the playoffs, then they will probably want to slash payroll. Murphy and Dunleavy are probably untradeable because their big $$$ contracts run through '10-'11. Trading O'Neal for expiring contracts would tremendously improve the team's bottom line while better positioning the team for the future.

Yi Jianlian of the Bucks at the trade deadline
I don't see any point to the Bucks trading Yi earlier. He is exactly the type of player they need. The Bucks position has to be that if Yi is going to sit out the season, he is going to lose out on millions, embarrass his country, disappoint his government (who wants him to get as much NBA experience as possible before the 2008 Beijing Olympics), and have his marketability seriously damage. If Yi is going to shaft the Bucks, I expect the Bucks to try to hurt him as much as possible in return. So I think the Bucks will do a waiting game and then trade him at the last possible moment. If the Bucks trade him, they will probably use him to trade one of their bad contracts and/or acquire a future high draft pick. The longer they wait, the better idea they will have on who they want to get rid of and/or what team is likely to have a future high draft pick.

Marcus Camby of the Nuggests near the trade deadline
The Nuggets are coming off a 45-37 season in the weakest division of the Western Conference. They needed a 16-6 finish to even make the playoffs and then they had a first round exit. They have the 3rd highest payroll in the NBA. The salaries of their 5 most expensive players will increase after the '07-'08 season by $5.2M to $68.2M. They have very little depth - they are counting on Kenyon Martin to play back up C (a stretch for the 6'9" injury-plagued player); their tallest bench player besides Martin is 6'8"; their back up PG and SG are Chucky Atkins and Yakhouba Diawara; and they don't really have a back up SF. An injury could easily knock them out of playoffs. If the Nuggets struggle, they could be open to trading Camby for an expiring contract to get them out of the luxury tax.

My thoughts on the Spurs FO

A series of post in this thread on LakersGround.net on 8/19/07 and 8/20/07.

Man, I am so sick of the "Spurs always do the right thing" posts

ajaxxx wrote:
Spurs continue to make the right moves no matter how small they are. Udoka will log on heavy minutes behind the aging Bowen.

B_P wrote:
It would have been a real smart, subtle "low risk, high reward" signing for us. You get A LOT of value out of what you sign Udoka for.

But really, you could see SA picking him up from a mile away.
SA continues to do what SA does.

...and so do we.

I just don't get our FO sometimes.

The Spurs were one of the oldest teams, if not the oldest team, in the NBA. Last season, Horry was 36, Barry and Bowen were 35, Finley was 33, Oberto was 31, Duncan was 30 and Ginobili was 29. The Spurs FO made the following moves last off-season:
1. Traded Nesterovic (30) for Matt Bonner (26) and Eric Williams (34) and a 2009 2nd round pick
2. Signed Jacque Vaughn (31)
3. Signed Jackie Butler (21)
4. Signed Francisco Elson (30)
5. Signed James White (24)
6. In Feb, traded for Melvin Ely (28)

That means the Spurs players under 30 besides Parker and Ginobili were:
Udrih - In his 3rd season, put up numbers very similar to Sasha
Bonner - Averaged 11.7 mpg in 56 games
White - Played in 6 games, cut after the season
Butler - Played in 11 games, traded after the season
Ely - Played in 6 games, not re-signed

This off-season, the Spurs traded Butler and the draft rights to Luis Scola (27) to Houston for Vassilis Spanoulis (25), who averaged 8.8 mpg in 31 games last season and who has since gone back to Europe.

Given that next season the Spurs will have more players who are over 33 and on the last year of their contract than players under 30, I would think that signing some youth would be paramount. But instead, the Spurs sign a project player who is 30! And the move earns kudos for many Laker fans for its brilliance!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Socks wrote:
I never said every single player they signed was a home run. But look at SA's strategy of acquiring veteran players over the years and good role players who do contribute. The championships tell me their FO is getting it right more than they are getting it wrong.

I think the championships mean that Duncan, Parker, Ginobili and Bowen are a championship-caliber group and have cover up the fact that the FO has screwed up consistently the last 5 years (with the exception of Finley, who was a gift from the NBA).

Socks wrote:
IMO, Udoke is one of them. You're going to tell me SA is NOT acquiring players that help Duncan win now?

I don't know what the Spurs FO is doing and it's not clear to me that the Spurs FO knows what it is doing. Last off-season, the Spurs made a bunch of moves to bring youth on to the roster. This off-season, they let most of their youth go and, as their major acquisition, signed someone who is 30. They are very close to becoming Tony Parker and the Over-The-Hill gang.

Socks wrote:
You're going to tell me Udoke at $2 M is not a good deal? Or do you just believe that Udoke can't really contribute? I'm afraid I'm not really understanding the argument here.

I am saying that the Spurs didn't address their primary need this off-season, which was to get some youth. Udoke at $2M is a good deal, but he is not what the Spurs needed. The Lakers addressed their primary need this off-season, which was to upgrade the PG position. And yet posters think the Spurs FO is doing a much better job than the Lakers FO.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Socks wrote:
[S]ome of the nice role player signings for the other 3 championship years include:
:

I don't want to get into the details of a team that I don't know well. However, many posters hold Mitch to the standard that he should have drafted or acquired a young, quality starter during the championship years and that he didn't means he is an incompetent GM. To me, the Spurs also fail to meet that standard. Yet the same posters who think Mitch should have acquired a young, quality starter sing the praises of the Spurs FO.

Socks wrote:
I agree the Spurs are old. I would also say everything is based of TD - he is the guy that keeps that championship window open. So if the Spurs FO can continue to bring in quality role players that can play with TD over the next 5 years then they are doing their best to take advantage of TD - no matter how old those players are.

I think this season is likely it for the Spurs, particularly if Finley leaves after this season. Last season was a really lucky one for the Spurs - Dallas getting knocked out in the first round and no major injuries despite being an old team.

Socks wrote:
I also feel like the Lakers didn't necessarily accomplish their goal as well as they could have. Yeah, Fish is an upgrade. But how much of one? And at what cost? I would've rather our FO signed both Brevin Knight and Udoke if possible - splitting the MLE instead of spending the whole MLE on Fish. This would help our permiter D as well as the PG slot. So I think where some Laker fans are coming is that SA signed a small piece of their puzzle at an undeniable good deal. The Lakers signed a small piece of their puzzle at a much more expensive rate when it seems as though there was greater opportunity.

This isn't a Lakers thread, so I will just say I disagree. I state my opinion of Knight here.

Defending Sasha (again)

A series of post in this thread on LakersGround.net on 8/17/07.

If the 2004 draft were re-held today, Sasha would be drafted just about where he was drafted. Some players drafted after him would move up before him (Anderson Varejao, Chris Duhon, Trevor Ariza), some players drafted before him would move down after him (Rafael Araujo, Pavel Podkolzin, Viktor Khryapa, Sergei Monia). He's an OK player for a 27th pick.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

hoopschick29 wrote:
Beno is a way better player than Sasha. At least he is if actually watch games. I would take him right now over Sasha. Somehow, I don't think SA would do that swap.

Sasha's stats for last season:
4.3 ppg in 12.8 mpg, shooting 39.2%, 37.3% on 3's, 1.5 rpg, 0.9 apg, 0.56 spg, 0.01 bpg, 0.41 TO, 2.13 A-to-TO

Beno's stats for last season:
4.7 ppg in 13.0 mpg, shooting 36.9%, 28.7% on 3's, 1.1 rpg, 1.7 apg, 0.37 spg, 0.01 bpg, 0.77 TO, 2.18 A-to-TO

Sasha played 43 minutes in 4 of the Lakers' 5 playoff games, shooting 56%
Beno played 21 minutes in 8 of the Spurs' 20 playoff games, shooting 0%

Not that it matters - I think most people have made up their minds about Sasha and a few facts aren't going to change it.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

hoopschick29 wrote:
And the point, KD, is that when you're as great as SA, having a Beno is of little consequence. But on the Lakers, having someone like Sasha get significant minutes because we're so difficient in quality players hurts us.

Could you explain this logic to me? Sasha was the 5th guard on the roster behind Kobe, Parker, Evans, and Farmar. The only cost I see to having him on the roster was that Green or Pinnock could have been on the roster instead. For the Spurs, if Parker or Vaughn got injured before the Suns series, then Beno would have had to play minutes against Barbosa. If Barbosa ate him up, then the Spurs don't advance. When you are a contender, injuries could make one of your reserves the difference between advancing or going home.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Short version of the Popovich model

Posted on LakersGround.net on 8/17/07.

Short version of the Popovich model:
1. Get an elite center with a #1 pick
2. Don't have him play for 2 years so you can get a #10 and #3 pick to play with him
3. Win 56 games the first year your elite big man plays
4. Go downhill from there with 55 and 47 wins
5. Get fired
6. Have a new GM take the team back up to 55 wins
7. Get re-hired
8. Bring in a new coach and some veterans to push the team to 62 and 59 wins, but still don't make it to the NBA Finals
9. At this point, 7 seasons after you put your #1 and #3 pick on the court, they are still your only good players
10. Have your two best players have injury problems, go 20-62, beat the odds to get the #1 pick when another elite big man is in the draft (and the player quality drops off dramatically after him)
11. Two seasons later, your veteran team wins the NBA Championship in a strike shortened season
12. Bask in the admiration for your BB acumen
13. The fact that outside of your second elite big man, the rest of your team is old catches up with you and you struggle the next three seasons, not making it to the NBA Finals. During this time, you retool your roster. One of your moves is to use the second to last pick in the draft on a South American player who might be good some day
14. Draft a 19 year old French point guard who is amazingly good
15. Win your second NBA Championship with the two elite bigs and the point guard
16. The South American player turns out amazingly good, giving you a trio that is the basis of winning another championship
17. Have the NBA declare a one-time luxury tax amnesty so you can get another elite swingman while he is still only 32
18. Win another championship
19. Bask in the admiration for your BB acumen

Thoughts on the Pacers

Posted on LakersGround.net on 8/16/07.

The Pacers are in a horrible position with a marginal playoff team in a small market with the 9th biggest payroll in the NBA and 3 monster contracts (JO, Dunleavy, Murphy). If they try to blow up their team, it isn't going to work because nobody is going to take Dunleavy and Murphy. I think they are holding out for a lopsided trade as that is the only way of their predicament.

Thoughs on the McKie and Divac signings

A series of post in this thread on LakersGround.net on 8/16/07.

I support Mitch as much as anyone on this board, but the McKie signing wasn't a decent signing. It was a waste, and though it didn't hurt the Lakers, it didn't help them. McKie's minutes had fallen dramatically the season before (28.2 to 16.4) and his per 40 minute scoring also had fallen (13.0 to 5.4). Many posters said that he was done before the Lakers signed him and they were right. I think the Lakers were in the no man's land of really needing a veteran PG but not wanting to sign someone to a contract longer than 2 years because of the 2007 plan, so they signed him out of hope, not realism. They wasted $5M of Buss' money for essentially an assistant coach.

OTOH, I always thought the Divac signing was a good one ruined by an unexpected back injury. Here is what Divac did in the 5 prior years:
82 games, 29.0 mpg, 12.3 ppg, 8.0 rpg
81 games, 29.9 mpg, 12.0 ppg, 8.3 rpg
80 games, 30.3 mpg, 11.1 ppg, 8.4 rpg
80 games, 29.8 mpg, 9.9 ppg, 7.2 rpg
81 games, 28.6 mpg, 9.9 ppg, 5.7 rpg
What I read of the injury was that in training camp, Divas was feeling really good and playing well, so he tried a move that he shouldn't have and screwed up his back.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hector the Pup wrote:
Which never happens with senior citizens, right?

Centers can play for a long time in the NBA. Mutombo is ancient, but played in 75 games last year, averaging 17.2 mpg. Willis, Ewing and Parish all played as decent reserves until they were at least 40. I didn't see any reason why Divac couldn't have provided some good minutes when he was 36 and 37.

Defending Luke Walton

A series of post in this thread on LakersGround.net on 8/14/07.

LakerLanny wrote:

LakerSanity wrote:
Kobe was talked about for like 30 seconds. I don't know why you are coming down so hard on Luke all of a sudden.

Because the Lakers could have given him a Matt Barnes contract and instead gave him 15 times as much.

Matt Barnes will get paid slightly more than $3M next season (link), where as Luke will get paid $4M (link). Barnes signed a one year contract because he wants to get paid more. Luke started every game he played as a Laker. Barnes started 23 out of 76. The Lakers think Luke is the type of player they want long-term, so they gave him a long-term contract. The Warriors didn't think Barnes was worth committing to far more than a season at a rate that Barnes could find acceptable.

LakerLanny wrote:
Which will haunt big time in the future, I already know that and in time of course I will be proven right yet again.

Let's jump back to July of 2005 to see how right LakerLanny was then about Luke:

LakerLanny in 7/05:
Ole'

Another Matador on the roster. And I thought we had too many SFs, what gives?

Just a horrible signing.

LakerLanny in 7/05:

brock wrote:
This is absurd. Luke is a great player. He makes his teammates better. He is a better than average shooter and a great passer. He is smart, doesn't make many mistakes, and directs traffic in the game.

I can't help but wonder if most of the "hate" on this thread is just from guys that don't really have an opinion but are jumping on the bandwagon.

Seriously, Luke is a quality player. Anyone who disagrees should take a long hard second look.

No offense, but maybe YOU should take a closer look.

A quality player? The rest of the league didn't seem to have him in high demand.

He cannot defend his position. A white guy dribbling between his legs and throwing behind the back passes is cute I guess, but really what is more conducive to winning is guys who can hold there own man to less points than they themselves can score. Pretty simple really.

When a guy like Corliss Williamson can abuse you at will, it isn't pretty. In fact rather than some scrub like Walton, it is old vets like Williamson the Lakers should be filling out the roster with.....not gimmick matadors who's sole purpose of coming into the game is to get scored on and throw away the ball.

BTW, Corliss Williamson has managed 1 start in the last 2 seasons with the Kings - a 20 mpg reserve on a .400 team.

LakerLanny in 7/05:

straylight wrote:
a good 3rd string SF who can come in if offense get too stagnant, or for gimmick/change of pace lineups. unique skills for a (current) laker:good court vision. good for practices. 2nd string if he can ever get his shot to fall consistently.

not a bad signing if we can get rid of some of the SFs in front of him, otherwise wasted roster spot. Even though I really like Jumaine Jones, I think he will easily be thrown in as filler in a trade if necessary - I seem to remeber him having a little trouble in the overload. Much rather get rid of george and caron (for something nice back) though.

-stray

3rd string? Try 5th string if the Lakers are smart.

Assuming Caron starts at SF and Odom at 4, then you have the following guys who are better than Walton at SF: Butler, George, Jones, Odom/Kobe.

As long as he is a last resort behind any of the other five mentioned above, I am fine with it.

But I maintain the guy doesn't even sniff the league if his last name wasn't Walton.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jeffs wrote:

Dennis_D wrote:
Can you back your opinion of Walton with stats? Because I can present a lot of stats to the opposite.

John "Chimpy" Hollinger, is that you? You see, the thing is, stats don't tell everything. I actually watch the games

You know, lots of people watch the games. Most people who watch the games have opinions. Why should I pay attention to your opinion? Does your opinion line up with objective reality? If so, you ought to be able to find some objective facts to support it.

Jeffs wrote:
I see that Luke is consistently beaten on the defensive end by bigger, faster, and stronger SFs. Even worse, we lose many offensive and defensive rebounds due to the elite athleticism of the players Luke is matched up with - athleticism that he can't ever hope to match. Watch one of the Dallas games last year when Luke matched up with Josh Howard. Count how many times Howard drove past Luke at will. Count how many offensive rebounds Dallas got because Howard tipped the ball out (I'm not sure exactly which game it was, but it was definitely a Dallas game that came to mind where Howard literally got like 6-7 offensive tip rebounds in the first half).

That's it? You have gone on and on about how Luke is such a terrible defender and how he causes such offensive rebounding problems and as evidence, you cite one game that you can't really remember?

Dallas averages 11.2 offensive rebounds a game. In the four games against the Lakers, they had 7, 14, 19 and 10 offensive rebounds, an average of 12.5 rebounds. In the game that Dallas had 19 offensive rebounds, Diop is the one who killed the Lakers with 6 ORebs in 13 minutes.

Jeffs wrote:
Regardless, I never said that Luke was a scrub. He's a decent player, and I would love for him to be the Lakers' 6th man. He's overpaid, and he's one-dimensional, but that doesn't mean he is useless. He knows the triangle better than anyone other than Kobe, and he's one of the best passers on the team. However, anyone who has watched the Lakers for the past few years can clearly see that he is an awful--no, not an average, but an awful--defender. His reasons aren't that he is lazy or that he gambles a lot like Smush. He simply doesn't have the foot speed and athleticism to match up with a lot of the elite swingmen in the NBA. It's not his fault, and I certainly don't blame him for it (in the sense that he could improve if he worked at it - you can't improve genes), but I also don't ignore it.

Again, can you support this opinion? Merely repeating the same argument over and over again doesn't make it any more convincing.

Jeffs wrote:
Oh, and I'm not bashing Luke. I even stated that I had no problem with his interview. I was just pointing out that, while Lanny was certainly very... blunt in how he put things, he was pointing out valid flaws in Luke's game.

You are stating a negative opinion of him over and over again that you can't support with objective facts. How is that not bashing?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Gimme_the_rock wrote:
Luke has a tremendous amount of flaws defensively match up-wise. Carmelo does lick his chops when the Lakers and Luke come to town.

Carmelo's '06-'07 scoring averages:
28.9 ppg on 47.557% shooting in 38.2 mpg

Carmelo's '06-'07 scoring averages against the Lakers:
30.0 ppg on 47.368% shooting in 40.3 mpg

Gimme_the_rock wrote:
The Lakers did overpay for Luke and for far too long a period.

That's based upon?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jeffs wrote:
Not a stat, but it's an objective observation. I know you won't accept it, but frankly, I really don't care.

There is no such thing as an objective observation about something someone is emotionally involved with. If you are predisposed to see Luke playing terrible defense, you are going to see Luke play terrible defense. That's why you (and anyone else) needs to verify their observations against objective facts.

Jeffs wrote:

Dennis_D wrote:
That's it? You have gone on and on about how Luke is such a terrible defender and how he causes such offensive rebounding problems and as evidence, you cite one game that you can't really remember?

Dallas averages 11.2 offensive rebounds a game. In the four games against the Lakers, they had 7, 14, 19 and 10 offensive rebounds, an average of 12.5 rebounds. In the game that Dallas had 19 offensive rebounds, Diop is the one who killed the Lakers with 6 ORebs in 13 minutes.

Offensive rebounds are given to the guy that comes up with the ball - not the guy that tips it. Howard repeatedly tipped the ball away from Luke when Luke (or a more athletic SF) would have rebounded it. Howard used his athleticism, jumping two or three times in the time that it took Luke to jump once, to tip the ball to his teammates and get extra possessions.

Offensive rebounds as you describe would never be missed in the box score. If Howard repeatedly abused Luke for offensive rebounds, why didn't Dallas have an unusually high number of offensive rebounds? You are making a conclusion based upon your recollection of personal observations that aren't reflected in the record of the game. To me, it looks like your recollection is wrong and therefore your conclusion is wrong.

Jeffs wrote:
Here are some stats to make you happy: Josh Howard (IMO a good example, as he is one of the few SFs that Luke actually gets stuck with, as Lamar has to defend Dirk) averaged 25.5ppg against the Lakers last season over 4 games. The only team he had a higher average against was Charlotte (27ppg), but that was only a 1 game sample size. Howard averaged 19ppg over the regular season, btw.

One player averaged above his scoring average against the Lakers. If Luke is an average player, about half the SF's that play against the Lakers will average above the scoring average.

Jeffs wrote:

Dennis_D wrote:
You are stating a negative opinion of him over and over again that you can't support with objective facts. How is that not bashing?

I can support my opinion with objective observations. Sorry, I watch basketball, maybe analyze it at times, but I don't study it. If you want to spend all of you free time tinkering with facts (which, I should point out, can be manipulated to "prove" whatever you want from what I have seen), then that's fine. However, I feel that SEEING Luke's slow footspeed, low athleticism, and poor results on defense is more than enough to support the opinion that I have.

Again, people's observations are shaped tremendously by what they are predisposed to see. A classic example is to ask fans of two different teams to watch a game between the teams and ask if the refereeing was fair. The fans will always say that the refereeing was biased against their team. Same game, tremendously different conclusions based upon what people are predisposed to see.

It isn't possible to "prove" whatever you want with stats. Their isn't one stat the conclusively summarizes what happened, so different stats will give slightly different pictures. But no stat will make Smush Parker look like he played well in the playoffs with the Lakers.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jeffs wrote:

Dennis_D wrote:
There is no such thing as an objective observation about something someone is emotionally involved with. If you are predisposed to see Luke playing terrible defense, you are going to see Luke play terrible defense. That's why you (and anyone else) needs to verify their observations against objective facts.

If you're going to go that route, then you need to understand that NOTHING here fits your definition of objectivity. Guess what? Your GM study - that doesn't fit it, either. You clearly make some subjective observations about some players, and make arbitrary values to represent their worth and the level of the GM's competency. I'd say you were looking for a certain type of conclusion, and thats are the conclusion that you ended up with. Accident? Nope. Simply subjective observations in several cases, which manipulate the results into the mold that you see fit.

I think you are confused about what objective, subjective and bias mean. My GM study was biased in a certain direction, but was objective because it could be reproduced by anyone else. Your observations are subjective because no one sees things exactly the way you do. Now, you may feel how the study was biased was inappropriate and several people did say that. But that is far more interesting debate then shouting subjective assessment of GM's drafting ability at each other.

Jeffs wrote:
Now you're saying that I need to verify my observations against objective facts. Okay, tell me this - is it not objective fact that Kobe and LO are the ones that end up defending most of the elite SFs in the league? I mean, whether I am emotionally invested in the team or not, I think it's fair to say that I can discern which player is defending whom, no?

As far as I know, there is no source that lists who covers who in the NBA, so there is no way that I know of to objectively determine who covers who. People on this site seem to think that Luke covers Melo. You have The Shoes post above your last one and Gimme The Rock saying that, "Carmelo does lick his chops when the Lakers and Luke come to town."

Jeffs wrote:

LA_Lakers_Rule wrote:
Bottom line some can argue he's a tad below others maybe he's a tad above that of "average'. But the description in terms of "horrible" would lead one to believe that he has no talent or ability at all. Clearly Luke is "savy" and plays decent position defense. Certainly not "great" ofcourse, but I tend to think maybe not "horrible" either.

Tad above or below average? Okay, prove it. Look at the depth charts of all of the NBA teams (I provided a link), and give me examples of starting SFs that are inferior defenders to Luke. Seriously, if he's above average, then there should be 16-20 SFs that are inferior defenders. If he's just a bit below average, then you should be able to give me 10-14 examples.

Somehow, I think you'll have trouble giving more than 2-3, if that.

How can someone determine if someone is a better/worse defender than Walton? The only thing that comes to mind is the Opp PER from 82games.com.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Starting SF's in the league last season, in order of their Opp PER from 82games.com:
#1 Andrei Kirilenko 11.7
#2 Tayshaun Prince 12.2
#3 Luol Deng 12.3
#4 LeBron James 13.0
#4 Josh Howard 13.0
#6 Shane Battier 13.4
#7 Bruce Bowen 13.7
#8 Richard Jefferson 14.1
#9 Jorge Garbajosa 14.7
#9 Josh Smith 14.7
#9 Corey Maggette 14.7
#12 Paul Pierce 15.1
#12 Danny Granger 15.1
#12 Ron Artest 15.1
#15 Gerald Wallace 15.7
#16 Rasual Butler 16.0
#17 Rashard Lewis 16.1
#17 Luke Walton 16.1
#19 Mickael Pietrus 16.3
#20 Andre Iguodala 16.5
#20 Ricky Davis 16.5
#22 Boris Diaw 16.6
#23 Rudy Gay 16.8
#24 Carmelo Anthony 17.0
#25 Hidayet Turkoglu 17.1
#26 Caron Butler 17.2
#27 Jason Kapono 17.3
#28 Quentin Richardson 17.4
#29 Ruben Patterson 17.7
#30 Ime Udoka 18.3
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jeffs wrote:
Luke is _NOT_ a quality starter.

The Lakers' record when Luke and Odom were playing/injured
Both playing - 14-6
Odom injured - 13-9
Walton injured, Odom hurt - 6-16
Walton hurt, Odom hurt - 9-9

Based upon that, Walton has a much an impact to the Lakers winning percentage as Odom does, if not more. There is a lot more going on than Odom and Walton's injuries, but the trend is impossible to ignore.

Jeffs - these are stats and as you believe that you can prove anything with stats, there is no point in you discussing them
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jeffs wrote:
I actually watch the games, and I see that Luke is consistently beaten on the defensive end by bigger, faster, and stronger SFs. Even worse, we lose many offensive and defensive rebounds due to the elite athleticism of the players Luke is matched up with - athleticism that he can't ever hope to match.

Lakers' defensive rebounding with Odom and Walton injured/playing:
Both playing: 72.4%
Odom injured: 71.8%
Walton injured, Odom hurt: 72.4%
Both hurt: 72.8%
NBA Average: 72.9%
Odom's DReb per game - 7.7, - , 7.9, 8.6
Walton's DReb per game - 3.2, 3.6, - , 3.9

Odom is clearly the better rebounder of the two. Somehow, with Odom hurt, Walton hurt, and Bynum toast, the Lakers almost averaged the league average for defensive rebounding.

Lakers' offensive rebounding with Odom and Walton injured/playing:
Both playing: 28.5%
Odom injured: 24.7%
Walton injured, Odom hurt: 26.0%
Both hurt: 25.6%
NBA Average: 27.1%
Odom's OReb per game - 1.4, -, 2.5, 1.8
Walton's OReb per game - 1.3, 1.7, -, 1.5

When the Walton and Odom were healthy, the Lakers averaged above the league average for offensive rebounds. Looking at the stats, Brown and Bynum were more important to the Lakers' offensive rebounding than Odom and Walton.

Jeffs - these are stats and as you believe that you can prove anything with stats, there is no point in you discussing them
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jeffs wrote:
I repeat. Luke Walton is NOT a quality starter.

You said that already. Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it more persuasive.

Jeffs wrote:
Also, I don't recall stating that you can prove anything with stats. ON THE CONTRARY, I recall pointing out that numbers are very unreliable, and that I would prefer to focus on observations, as they are still the best way to analyze basketball.

Let me assist you then. You said, "If you want to spend all of you free time tinkering with facts (which, I should point out, can be manipulated to "prove" whatever you want from what I have seen), then that's fine." You also said "You see, I am of the belief that watching basketball and analyzing what you see is a much stronger argument than twisting numbers around to try and prove whatever your opinion may be."

Jeffs wrote:
You can continue to throw all of these obscure numbers at me

Win/loss record - yeah, that's really obscure.

Jeffs wrote:
If you actually watch the game, you see that Luke Walton is hidden on defense when he is supposed to match up against a strong scoring SF. No amount of stats is going to disprove that. If he was an average or above average defender, then he would be allowed to defend those players. However, unfortunately, he is far below average, and the Lakers are forced to switch Kobe or Odom onto those players. Feel free to post more numbers, but they really mean absolutely nothing when you actually watch what happens.

Now, which game was it last season "where Howard literally got like 6-7 offensive tip rebounds in the first half"? Which game was it last season where a healthy Walton couldn't cover Carmelo?

Jeffs wrote:
You seriously strike me as someone who does not watch basketball, but just reads the box scores and stats on 82games.com. I mean, you absolutely ignore what actually happens, and rely solely on the numbers. IMO, that's an extreme short-sighted approach, and is the reason that all of your "findings" are so far off.

I enjoy games when I watch them. I might make an observation or two while watching, but I don't trust observations from one game and I can't remember games well enough to make multi-game observations. So, most of my conclusions come from analyzing stats.

You strike me as someone who takes a couple of anecdotes, exaggerates them and then based upon them makes sweeping judgments that fit your pre-conceived notions. For example, it appears to me you saw Howard in one game get a couple of offensive tip rebounds over Walton, which became "Howard literally got like 6-7 offensive tip rebounds in the first half", which then lead to "Even worse, we lose many offensive and defensive rebounds due to the elite athleticism of the players Luke is matched up with - athleticism that he can't ever hope to match." Then, you watched a game where an injured Walton had to be switched off the second best scorer in the NBA, which became "Kobe and LO are the ones that end up defending most of the elite SFs in the league", which then lead to that Walton "is an awful--no, not an average, but an awful--defender". You also strike me as the type that ignores or downplays any facts that don't fit your opinion. You have your opinion based upon your "objective observations" and nothing is going to change your mind.

I hope I am wrong. I have been waiting for you to cite more verifiable evidence. I have been waiting for you to cite more than a couple of unidentified games. We are on page 6 and I am still waiting.

Walton is a starter on a team that I think, if it can stay healthy, will win at least 50 games. I think Walton has a large positive effect on the team's offense, which more than offsets his below average defense. That means to me he is a quality starter. You have a different opinion. Let's leave it at that. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Mike@LG and I argue over the Fisher signing

A series of post in this thread on LakersGround.net on 8/13/07 and 8/14/07.

Mike@LG wrote:
What makes me feel worse is when there's a 2-way Win Win situation. Patterson and Posey would've surely helped defending SFs and SGs for MLE ish money. Still need the vet. PG? Brevin Knight has been available on and off for 5 years now. Still ignored, yet he provides high quality PG defense, stability, and solid playmaking skills.

The Lakers #1 problem last season was PG. The Lakers get a shot at a veteran PG with triangle experience and they went for it, locking up most of their MLE money. The Lakers have lots of players who can play SF - Walton, Odom, Bryant, Evans and Vlad. Getting a defensive SF was not nearly as important as getting a better PG.

For those of you who are going to say, "But they could have gotten Fisher for the Vet Min", I disagree. There are several teams that need veteran PG help and they would have made a run at Fisher if the Lakers had low-balled him. In particular, I think Houston and Boston would have gone after him.

Now, if the Lakers can get Patterson or Posey for what they have left of the MLE, they should do it.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mike@LG wrote:
I'm of the opinion that real basketball talent can play within any offense as long as the player is willing to learn. Brevin Knight would've been a triangle fit, no different from Parker when he actually executed it well.

My impression is that the PG in the triangle doesn't handle the ball as much as other defenses, but has to be able to make the 3 in order to spread the defense. Knight shot 5.6% from 3pt land last season. He's a career 15% 3pt shooter. He's not a reliable player, having played 80, 39, 65, 53, 53, 55, 56, 66, 69 and 45 games in his career. As he is 32, it is reasonable to assume his durability will decline.

So you would have spent the whole MLE on a defensive SF and hoped that you can land Brevin Knight as a PG? That's nuts to me. You nail down your weak spot first, particularly as the PG you are landing has years of triangle experience. Then you look around for a defensive SF/3 pt shooter.

Mike@LG wrote:
Getting a defense SF/3pt. shooter should be nearly as important as getting a better PG. Why? Relieve Bryant the defensive pressure. Solidify the perimeter defense. Bryant is the only real man-defender out there. Brevin Knight does a good job at PG. Posey does the same. 3 solid man-defenders that can lower FG% AND force turnovers? Better than just Fisher.

Last season, if the Lakers wanted better perimeter defense, they brought in Evans to play SG and slid Kobe up to SF. Evans provided better defense last season (Opp PER of 11.5 as SG) then Posey did (16.5 PER at SF). Or the Lakers can slide Odom to SF to provide perimeter defense (in '05-'06, Odom at SF allowed an Opp PER of 12.7). They don't need to add a very limited player (Posey is a mediocre ball handler and either shoots a 3 or in the lane - nothing in-between, ) for MLEish money to solve a problem they have other solutions for.

Mike@LG wrote:
This happens every year with the Lakers. It's tiresome.

What? That they don't follow your unrealistic ideas?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

Mike@LG wrote:
What's so unrealistic? Posey, Magloire, and Patterson are going for less than the MLE.

Brevin Knight is going for the vet.min.

If that's unrealistic for the team, there are FAR bigger issues, STARTING with the front office.

I don't think that Dennis meant that signing these guys is unrealistic per se, but rather that your strategies for improving the team are not realistic.

In particular, Mike's strategy for filling the Lakers biggest need - PG - was unrealistic. My understanding was that his strategy was to hope that the Lakers could sign Knight to the vet min, then hope that Knight would be effective in the triangle despite no experience and no outside shot, then hope that the injury-proned Knight would have a healthy season. I think that is unrealistic and the fact that Knight signed a 2 year, $4M deal yesterday proves that it was unrealistic.

If you accept that is unrealistic, then unless you know of some trade for a PG that the Lakers could have made, signing Fisher to a MLEish contract was their only option to address their biggest need. IMHO, signing Fisher ranks up there with drafting Tim Duncan with the #1 in terms of moves that were obvious to make. Signing Fisher precludes signing anyone else to a MLEish contract. So, saying that the Lakers should have signed Posey or some other defensive SF to a MLEish contract this off-season is also being unrealistic.

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

Mike@LG wrote:
Every year the Lakers skimp on quality talent while other teams pick them up for cheap. There's always a Brevin Knight, Jason Kapono, James Singleton... etc., for the vet.min...

Brevin Knight signed for a lot more than the veteran minimum, Jason Kapono signed for the full MLE, and James Singleton (who I had never heard of) got cut by the Clippers and signed in Spain. I think this is what Dennis means by unrealistic, though he can speak for himself.

That's not being unrealistic. That's making up your mind and not let the facts confuse you.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mike@LG wrote:
Brevin Knight signed for multiple years for the vet.min. prior to his new contract.

Brevin played the '04-'05 season for what I assume is the vet min for Charlotte. That was Charlotte's first season and I assume that he was willing to play there for the vet min to prove his worth. He started 61 out of the 66 games he played. He then earned $4.6M and $4.4M the two seasons afterwards.

Mike@LG wrote:
Kapono? Same.

He signed a 2-year min contract with Miami in the 2005 off-season. Given that he is only a 3 pt shooter and that the Lakers were loaded with SF's at the time, I don't see why it is a big deal that the Lakers didn't sign him.

Mike@LG wrote:
Singleton? Great find. I don't care if he got cut. He's got some good NBA talent on the cheap and fills some Laker needs.

He had a good-for-an-undrafted-rookie season for the Clips and then a bad season (7.1 mpg in 53 games, 1.6 ppg on .366 shooting, 2.0 rpg). From his stats, I can't see the "good NBA talent" that you see.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mike@LG wrote:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I would add that Brevin Knight is a 5'10" point guard who turns 32 this season, who has no experience in the triangle, and who is not a logical fit for the triangle. The fact that he shot over 50% from one "hotzone" last year does not diminish the fact that he was a 41.9% shooter overall. While he can be a valuable asset in the right sort of system, he is not someone I would have targeted to fill our gap at PG.

Brevin Knight was a 5'10" PG that played even better defense and distributed well as a 27 year old PG that the Lakers still past up.

I don't think the Lakers could have offered him the opportunity that Charlotte offered him, so I doubt he would have considered the Lakers if they had made him the same offer that Charlotte had offered him. Also, I thought we were talking about the Lakers options this off-season, not hashing what should or should not have happened years ago.

Mike@LG wrote:
For all this talk about shooting, I think people forgot that at Utah, he shot 38% last year overall, despite the fact that Deron Williams relieved him of PG duties.

Fisher started 61 games last season at SG despite being way too small because he was the best SG the Jazz had. Per 82games.com, his stats were much better when he played PG, but he played most of his time at SG (41% vs 16%):
PG: 0.450 eFG%, 18.9 PER, +2.0 Net PER
SG: 0.401 eFG%, 9.7 PER, -7.4 Net PER
It's hard for me to hold poor stats against him when he was playing out of position most of the time.

Mike@LG wrote:
Brevin Knight buys time for Crittenton and Farmar, just like Fisher. Except, Knight is the better defender, playmaker, with higher FG%.

Except Knight would never make it to the Lakers. If the Lakers had signed a defensive SF for MLEish money (your suggestion), then they wind up with Farmar and Critterton as their only PG's. It's not a question of Fisher vs Knight. It's a question of a defensive SF vs Fisher.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mike@LG wrote:
See why I have an issue with the Lakers? Pass up guys. I even called for Banks for the MLE #1 over Radmanovic (Good signing, not my favorite), and guess what he would have done for the Lakers? Defensive PG, some vet. experience, up to 20mpg. Perfect situation.
:
So, instead of Banks and Posey (which improves the team defensively, and there's no question to Posey's 3pt. shooting is good as well), we've got Fisher and Radmanovic.

Banks was terrible last season for the Suns. At the start of the season, they had him in the rotation, playing 11-19 minutes. By the 14th game, they were playing him 4-6 mpg. By the 20th game, he was only getting minutes in blow outs. He got some run in late Jan and early Feb, and then was sent back to the end of the bench were he stayed through the playoffs. He played 6 minutes against us in blow out Game 2, then 1 minute in one game against the Spurs. As far as I can tell, he wasn't injured last season.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mike@LG wrote:
See, I've pointed out the season when Banks got the most starts. And he was solid on both ends. Still heavily criticized anyway, even if he matched Parker on stats but was a much better defender. Because somehow, 12ppg 5apg 48%FG 36.4% 3pt. and solid D is "poor".

The T-Wolves were 19-21 before the trade for Banks and went 14-28 afterward. Before the trade, they were allowing 90.9 ppg while scoring 91.2 ppg. After the trade, they were allowing 96.2 ppg while scoring 92.2 ppg. Per 82games.com, Banks had for the T-Wolves a PER of 15.5 and an opponent PER of 19.0. I didn't watch Banks play while he was in Minnesota, but the stats point to him not being a good defender there.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mike@LG wrote:

Dennis_D wrote:
Banks was terrible last season for the Suns. At the start of the season, they had him in the rotation, playing 11-19 minutes. By the 14th game, they were playing him 4-6 mpg. By the 20th game, he was only getting minutes in blow outs. He got some run in late Jan and early Feb, and then was sent back to the end of the bench were he stayed through the playoffs. He played 6 minutes against us in blow out Game 2, then 1 minute in one game against the Spurs. As far as I can tell, he wasn't injured last season.

You do know D'Antoni runs the tightest rotations and Banks was just outside of it?

Why would D'Antoni change anything, when he's got a 3 guard lineup of Barbosa, Nash, and Bell?

From the Suns press release when Banks was signed:

Suns Find Their Backup Point
Guard in Banks
While bringing in a native Las Vegas playmaker may be the equivalent of the Suns “going all in” for this summer's free agent market, what isn’t a gamble is what point guard Marcus Banks will provide the defending Pacific Division champs next season – namely less minutes for starter Steve Nash.

Nash's minutes for '05-'06: 35.4
Nash's minutes for '06-'07: 35.3

:
...[Banks] taking pressure off the backcourt as a whole solves a multitude of concerns for a team whose summer priority all along was to find a quality backup for the two-time NBA MVP.
:
Managing Partner Robert Sarver added, “This is a team he wanted to play for. He’s excited to play with Steve Nash. He’s excited to play the role he needs to play to help us win a championship. It fills a need for us this year and fills out the rest of our roster to get us where we need to be. We’re close. And Marcus will help get us there.”

The addition of Banks also allows reserve Leandro Barbosa to slide over to his more natural position at shooting guard.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I think the Lakers won't make a trade soon

Posted on LakersGround.net on 8/13/07.

I really don't see the Lakers making a trade for until well into the season. I think JO isn't going to move until the Pacers get a feel for how good (or bad) their team is. The Pacers just changed their coach, so it's hard to predict how the players will fit his style (I don't think JO does). Their roster is so screwed up its hard to predict what they want. I think the Lakers want to see how well their young players play before making any more moves. To me, this roster has depth at every position, so if the Lakers wanted to trade say Farmar, I can't think of any player they could get for him that would improve the team.

The only move I think the Lakers might make before training camp is to sign Sun Yue.

Defending Sasha

Posted on LakersGround.net on 5/10/06.

Hector the Pup wrote:
Sasha was given minutes by Phil Jackson because there was no other option.

His minutes dropped in the playoffs and he didn't even play every game. That says all that needs to be said about what Phil thinks about Sasha.

Oh, come on. His minutes per game dropped all the way from 12.8 to 10.8. In the playoffs, coaches typically shorten their bench. BTW, Vujacic was one of four Lakers to have a positive net PER for the playoffs (link):
Bryant +15.9
Odom +3.8
Vujacic +2.8
Evans +0.7

Vujacic stats were very comparable to Beno Udrih's (while playing on a worse team) and Udrih did have his minutes drastically slashed in the playoffs (21 minutes over 20 playoffs games).

Vujacic is OK for a third string guard. Unless he dramatically improves, I see this season as his last. However, he is far from the worst player in NBA.

My thoughts on the Lakers roster after the Karl signing

Posted on LakersGround.net on 8/10/07.

I was surprised when Coby was signed. The Lakers had said they wanted to have only 14 on the roster and Coby made 15. Also, I thought the Lakers would sign Sun Yue to a 3 year non-guaranteed contract. I question how much he will improve on a Chinese team and I am sure the Chinese government wants him to get NBA/NBDL experience over playing on a Chinese team. To sign a second round pick to a 3 year contract takes some MLE money, which the Lakers currently have.
C: Mihm/Bynum/Brown
PF: Odom/Turiaf/Cook
SF: Walton/Radmanovic
SG: Bryant/Evans/Vujacic/Karl
PG: Fisher/Farmar/Critterton

My preference is for the Lakers to still sign Sun Yue and then have a 3 way battle for the 14th and 15th spots on the roster.