Eddie Money had two tickets to paradise
The Celtics now have one Ticket, a purchase made with the intention of traveling to the same destination that Mr. Money had in mind. Needless to say, this is pretty gosh darn huge. "Big enough to make David Stern stop weeping about Oden and Durant playing for two teams nobody ever sees" huge. "Big enough to make Bill Simmons stop weeping about acquiring Ray Allen" huge, especially considering Jesus Shuttlesworth reportedly played a big role in pitching Beantown to Garnett. Hell, it's even "big enough to overshadow the Lakers signing Coby Karl" huge.
OK, the acquiring of George Karl's undrafted son might have flown under the radar under any circumstances (although it's actually a more inspirational story than KG getting traded). But when it comes to inspiring Laker fans to sing a tune with an excellent guitar riff, the newest Laker likely won't cut the mustard. Karl's presence also appears a long shot to prevent Kobe from licking old wounds, a reaction that could make things rather unpleasant. Thus, it begs the question of where to go from here.
Well, for fans, a trip to El Segundo armed with flaming torches and a cry for Mitch Kupchak's head is unwarranted. I'm not being a front-office apologist, just realistic. Disappointed as I am to see Garnett land elsewhere, I don't think this situation is reasonably on Kupchak's shoulders. By all accounts, an aggressive pitch was made for Garnett. A failure to put him in purple and gold didn't seem due to a reluctance to part with chips, simply a lack of said chips. I've said a zillion times that I didn't think the Lakers had the pieces to make KG a Laker. Here's proof positive. Sorry, but Boston's offer was better than the Lakers' best counter. Compare the particulars and it's obvious:
Kwame Brown represents an expiring contract worth 9 million bucks. Theo Ratliff's is worth 11.7. I'm hardly qualified to teach mathematics at MIT. I can barely do long division. But I remain confident in my belief that 11.7 is more than 9. Bynum is a promising post player. Al Jefferson is a promising post player who's more developed than Drew. That doesn't mean Jefferson's a lock to end up the better player, but it does mean he's pretty a tough commodity to refuse, especially in a holdout for a less-established big man. In addition to draft picks, the Wolves receive youngsters ranging from "all upside" (Gerald Green) to "potentially solid role player" (Ryan Gomes) to "soon to be blessed with a lot of free time to shop for new guns" (Sebastian Telfair). All contracts end in 2008, providing a team that won't likely be good for a few seasons some low-risk, short-term options. And since they won't be solid anytime soon, why take on Lamar Odom's big contract and allow his PT to stymie the growth of Corey Brewer? Even with the Lakers theoretically willing to take Marko Jaric or Mark Blount's bad salaries, the Celts package makes more sense for a rebuilding team. If you wanna blame Kupchak for not having the requisite pieces on hand, fair enough. But otherwise, you're basically blaming him for not being able to con Kevin McHale into taking a clearly less-desirable package. His moves over the years show McHale may be dumb, but the man ain't stupid.
Assuming Kupchak can enter his office without a private security detail, what should he do while at his desk? Hopefully not sign off on a panic move that shows fans (and a certain shooting guard) that he's willing to "make noise." Yeah, noise often reeks of "bold and decisive." But noise also typically precedes a thumping headache. The powers that be are already gobbling Excedrin. No need to willingly end up in rehab for an aspirin addiction. Jermaine O'Neal, for example, is the likely name to pop up in rumor mills. Last time he was sewing circle fodder, the deal involved exchanging Odom and Bynum (unless you're counting the Odom-Bynum-Brown for JO-Troy Murphy proposal, but I don't since it was asinine to even consider). Landing JO gives the Lakers a bigger "name" and certainly brings the much-ballyhooed "noise." But would it also bring bring the funk? I don't think so.
JO might shore up the D a bit in between nursing injuries (which happens quite a bit, for those keeping score). But I don't think he'd transform the Laker hoop into a fortress, either. In the meantime, you lose what LO provides the offense, especially in turns of it running smoothly. Yes, offense isn't chief among Laker concerns, but that's assuming it functions at peak capacity. Remove LO from the equation for a less versatile option and you may downgrade the O more than the D actually improves. JO is a more consistent scorer, but this still strikes me as a sideways (and expensive) move, and I don't know if it's worth trading two of three pieces with any value simply because it represents "bold action." Driving headfirst in a brick wall at 90 mph is bold. Doesn't mean I'm itching to do it. And save the theoretical move for KG, the only way the Lakers were "one player away" was through adding a high-quality player to the mix, not swapping talent. If the Lakers pick up a quality player to accompany Kobe and JO, that's perhaps another story. But I'd hate to see the team dig itself further into a hole so fans know they're "serious about building a winner." "Serious" and "smart" are two different things. I prefer the latter.
Does that mean I wanna stand pat? No. The front office should aggressively go after any good player on the market and those reportedly untouchable. But I don't think they should move heaven and earth, no questions asked. Especially if the primary motive is making Kobe happy, since the odds are low, anyway. Garnett was the guy he wanted. That's no longer a possibility. I don't picture any other moves that'll automatically put a smile on his face. Except, of course, trading him. Which, as I've said before, I think the Lakers should seriously consider. Not because I "want" to trade Kobe. Nobody really "wants" to trade the league's best player still in his prime. I'd much rather put a team around him, all things being equal. But this isn't about what I want. It's about what I think is best for the Lakers, and sometimes what you want to do and what you should do are two very different things.
If you can't utilize Kobe's abilities to their fullest by building around him, there's no real point to having him here, especially if he's counting down the minutes (perhaps in a vocal and distracting fashion) until he can bolt. You're simply avoiding the inevitable, and procrastinating could limit whatever returns are possible for Kobe. Like it or not, the Lakers may be in a position where rebuilding is the unattractive but necessary solution. If that's the case, you're better off obtaining (and retaining) the most pieces and options to make it happen. No Laker will fetch more loot than Kobe. Were I Mitch Kupchak, I'd keep my ear to the ground for possibilities. But if I'm hearing nothing but silence, I would approach Kobe and lay everything on the table. If we acquiesce to your wishes, will you widen the list of reportedly acceptable destinations beyond "Chicago" and "Chicago" (although the Bulls could very well be more interested in a Kobe trade these days, now that Boston's a legit three-headed monster)? As stubborn as he can be and as much as he hates relinquishing control, Kobe might be open to a compromise focused around speeding up his wishes. Or he might take that stance as a sign of weakness and relish having the Lakers by the short and curlies, aping how Shaq handled his trip out of town. But if I had to guess, a cooperative olive branch is more likely to help than hurt. And it may be the best move for the franchise (if a bitter pill for fans to swallow).
In any case, I'd be lying if I said I'm not curious about what comes next. I'm already exhausted thinking about how many hours I'm gonna be chained to my laptop writing about it. But curious nonetheless.
-- AK
TaosHum,
"ohhhh! at the 30:00 mark of the Celtic press conference, the truth finally comes out: Garnett ruled out the Lakers because the "Kobe situation" was up in the air. Remember the phone call from KG TO KOBE because Kobe wasn't trying to call KG before the draft? Remember how everything died out after that phone call?"
SHALL WE NOW CALL HIM THE "BIG FRANCHISE KILLER"
Posted by: Gunner | July 31, 2007 at 09:23 PM
hubbit,
"Would we be in this deep of a mess if Kobe had acted like KG and been loyal and long-suffering (alot more than Kobe's 3 years!) this off season?"
i surmised that we would be a meek team, like T'Wolves if Kobe were a KG. Unfortunately, people here in LA are high profiled and high strung, they wanted always to be in the limelight. That's the reason I said Kobe the person and Kobe the player are two different characters.
As I was telling AZ, when we traded Shaq, we failed to get a suitable replacement. There was no enough insurance with LO, Butler, Grant, we could have gotten more from that deal by grabbing all the first round picks of Miami or opted cash instead of Grant. Well, that is now second guessing. In short, We did not get another Superstar to play with Kobe so the Lakers were partially lame with the experimentation of Kupchak. They gambled on Kwame, thinking that his mean-spirited body would trigger a solid threat in the middle. It did. However, he gave away also in too many turnovers and unskilled shooting. Those are the historical problems that has something to do with the deep mess.
I cannot completely blame Kupchak, he was deciding to please two masters: one a $10M Coach who was looking for the pieces needed in his triangle and the other one, a future owner who has a vision of the future. Seemingly, Kupchak put these two apples one each under his two armpits and close his arms to the body. Since he was sqeezing these two apples with his shoulders, he could not move his hands freely or else an apple would fall down. He did not have the freedom to swing on his own or shoot straight, all he could do were short hooks and upper cuts hoping they could land. As result, all his actions were short-sighted. Why not JUST SAY NO? You hired me as a GM, i will listen to ur inputs but I will give u the personnel.
Posted by: Edwin Gueco | July 31, 2007 at 09:27 PM
I better see the below lineup by September 1st.... FIRE MITChelle KUPCHAK! PLEEEEASE!!!!!!
DEREK FISHER
KOBE BRYANT
LUKE WALTON
JERMAINE O'NEAL
KWAME BROWN
Size, defense, depth, and a complimentary post presence in Jermaine O'Neal. I'd have shipped off Odom & Bynum at the trade deadline, and even have thrown in a point guard and a #1 pick to get the deal down. KUPCHAK BLOWS.
Posted by: timwillis | July 31, 2007 at 09:36 PM
Time for a reality check. All this talk about Ray Allen and Paul Pierce being 'unselfish' and great teammates is making me sick. This is like a bad episode of extreme makeover.
This is the same Ray Allen that failed in Milwaukee, failed in Seattle, and will now fail in Boston. Allen is just a shooter. He rarely passes the ball and cannot (or will not) play defense. He likes to talk about other players (Kobe) but has done little to distinguish himself.
Paul Pierce is another scorer. Compared to Allen he looks all league defense (not really). He was all over Ainge about inproving the team or trading him, NOW! When your not a star like Kobe your tantrums don't get as much ink.
Neither of these guys are 'winners'. Unfortunately they are going to hold KG back from getting to the finals. KG is a class act, a warrior. But as his experience in MInnesota taught him, you can't do it alone. Is KG going to guard all five players?
Remember the Houston experiment? Hakeem, Barkley and Pippen ? That didn't turn out to well did it? You can't just throw three scorers out there and hope to outscore everyone. WHAT SAY YOU?
Posted by: reality check time | July 31, 2007 at 09:38 PM
Gunner,
Ba Ba Baaaaa BIIIIIIGGGGGGG FRANCHISE KA KA KAAAAA
KILLLLLLLLLEEEERRRRRRR!!! Killa... Killa...
as the NBA says, "Let the truth be told!"
Posted by: TaosHum | July 31, 2007 at 09:39 PM
One day I will buy the Laker organization! I will make Kobe the playing coach, GM and President of my organization!
Posted by: Staples 24 | July 31, 2007 at 09:40 PM
The truth comes out... Kobe blew off Garnett...
Fr Fr Frrrrrrrr
FRANCHISE
Ka Ka Kaaaaaaa
KILLA... Killa... killa...
Posted by: TaosHum | July 31, 2007 at 09:51 PM
In the rush to praise KG and Pierce while burying Kobe, I have been wondering:
Has any player played 10 or more seasons with a single team without a ring, and then, following some critical trade or re-ordering or something, subsequently gone on to win his first ring with that team?
Another way of asking the same question: has any player won his first ring with a team in his 10th year + with that team?
I'm betting that's a pretty short list. I wonder if Jerry West is on it? I'm not asking rhetorically... if any of you almanac wizards know, I'm curious: I think it may shed some light on this issue of "loyalty."
Posted by: The D | July 31, 2007 at 09:51 PM
Long Time Laker Fan...some of the deals you're offering, the teams would be crazy to take them. You're simply asking for too much.
Posted by: Michael A | July 31, 2007 at 09:52 PM
Time for a reality check. Having avoided this topic long enough its time to talk about Kobe. Kobe is 29 years old will about 2 million games on his knees (and other assorted parts). If he plays until his opt out he will be 31! What is he going to have left? Who is going to want to pay max dollars for a 31 year old SG with that kind of miles on him?
Look, this may sound selfish, but we have already gotten the best years out of him. Without injury he can maintain this level maybe three more years,after that his performance will decline but not his paycheck.
We should make him play out his contract then work a sign and trade when he wants to opt out. Money is always important. Few teams (if any) will be able to pay him what he wants without a sign and trade. If we keep him we get the benefit of two solid years while still retaining the possibility of getting something in return in two years.
The worst thing that could happen is if he suffers a major injury during that time. In that case I doubt he would opt out and we would be on line for the rest of his contract. I say make him stay. WHAT SAY YOU?
Posted by: reality check time | July 31, 2007 at 09:53 PM
Edwin,
"As I was telling AZ, when we traded Shaq, we failed to get a suitable replacement. There was no enough insurance with LO, Butler, Grant, we could have gotten more from that deal by grabbing all the first round picks of Miami or opted cash instead of Grant."
You can't just substitute 15 mil in cash for Brian Grant. The most you can include with a trade is 3 mil. So to make the scenario you're proposing even CBA legal, Miami would have needed to give the Lakers anywhere from their next 8-12 draft picks, depending on where they finished each year. Maybe even more, if the Heat didn't agree on the cash aspect. Do you honestly think Miami would have gone for that? To go without drafting a player until 2009 or so? That would be ridiculous.
AK
Posted by: Andrew Kamenetzky | July 31, 2007 at 10:01 PM
timwillis
Kobe
Fisher
Walton
Oneil
Kwame
Your line up gets beat in the 1st or possibily the 2nd round. Why would you give up Bynum and Odom to lose in the 2nd round? The point a lot of people is missing is, you really need 3 guys to win. A superstar and 2 other very good players. Everyone wants to trade Lamar for Oneil. But it doesnt make sense. Oneil may be an upgrade over Lamar but it wasnt one of our weak spots. It was the 1 and the 3 that killed us and we havent adressed that. We need to bring in a quality player to join Kobe and Lamar to really have a chance. If we could get Oneil and keep Lamar, then we move Lamr to the 3 and we can make some noise. If we could bring in Artest with Kobe and Lamar, we could make some noise. But trading Lamar for Oneil really doesnt fix anything. And if Mitch makes that trade he will join Mchale as the worst GMs in the league.
MH
Posted by: michael h | July 31, 2007 at 10:07 PM
generic_one:
KG's comments in the press conference fit nicely into the theory that Kobe scared him off in that phone call.
By the way, what was Kobe doing in Chicago last Sunday? http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/490386,CST-NWS-SNEED31.article
Could a trade be underway? No evidence, just speculation.
Posted by: Jeff | July 31, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Does it really matter if BallHog24 is unhappy over the KG trade to Boston? I mean, some of you guys sound worried that the little puppy will be so upset that you don't know what he'll do next.
Get real. Who cares?
There are a precious few on this blog who realize the Lakers will NEVER improve with Marquee24 on the team, nor will any team he's eventually traded to. The rest of you put the spin on the front office and rationalize away the root of the Laker's problem.
The problem with the new Lakers-Celtics rivalry is that there will be no Lakers in the equation.
Posted by: Luigi | July 31, 2007 at 10:12 PM
did KG and kobe even have that phone conversation?
this was such an odd day
i sense some long, miserable days ahead for my favorite franchise.
Posted by: CBuck | July 31, 2007 at 10:16 PM
i'm just the ray of sunshine tonight
...
Posted by: CBuck | July 31, 2007 at 10:17 PM
TaosHum,
Why would you feel the need to fabricate news? This is the actual transcript of the press conference: (http://www.nba.com/garnett_presser_transcript_070731.html).
Garnett: “I really felt like it was the only scenario to be honest with you. Again, I can’t stress this anymore, you know, no one wants to be in the situation that you can’t be successful. I’m no different from that. I wasn’t comfortable with losing for what, the last four years. I try to digest that the best way I can and its difficult for me to be honest with you. Just looking at all of my scenarios knowing that Minnesota did share some of the same interests that I had. Knowing that I’m trying to find the best scenario for myself, my family, basketball-wise; this came out as the best scenario. I do have a place in L.A. L.A is L.A. I can’t, you know, knowing the Kobe situation is up in the air; Phoenix, those are beautiful places to visit and live but when you speak on basketball, and when you speak on fans, and how they feel about their sports here. I mean it’s a no-brainer. There was no way I was going to be able to go to another team in this league, have two caliber players that I have, Doc, I mean the staff, no way, there was no way I was going to be able to duplicate that in anything. So I feel like I made the right decision for not only me but for my family.”
He did NOT say that Kobe blew him off. He did not say that Kobe said that he wouldn't be here. If you must be untruthful to make your argument, then your argument obviously has no merit.
Step off.
He clearly says that he views the two-headed front court on Boston above what would be left after getting traded to the Lakers.
Step off, dude.
Gunner, you've been duped.
--FearlessWhackJob
Posted by: FearlessWhackJob | July 31, 2007 at 10:25 PM
AK,
I completely agree with everything you said.
The KG deal wasn't good for our team. Boston may proper for a year or so, but then they are doomed to mediocrity or the lottery for years to come. All their young talent will be gone and they'll be eating some monster contracts.
We don't really know what the JO offer\counter offer was from either team, but if we lose LO & Bynum in the deal, it's not good. You almost know Kwame and LO have to be in the deal to get the salaries up to JO's range, but that's not who the Pacers want, they want Bynum. I wonder why they want him? Not many other Laker fans think he's worth keeping, or they all say he "has to produce big this year". That's just crazy! He's a 19 year old kid! He's 7'-1", still gangly and a bit awkward, but he's 19 and playing in the NBA. He's playing against really big "MEN" and holding his own. He has a bright future and I'm happy to give him 2 or 3 years to show us what he can bring.
I said it last year and I've said it all summer, Kobe is our biggest trading chip. For everyone who wants to win now, we can't build around Kobe. We have what we have and options are few and far between. If you want to win now we have to trade our biggest chip. I have an idea that Dr. Buss will be more motivated to trade Kobe after hearing the KG press conference.
Posted by: LakerLarry | July 31, 2007 at 10:28 PM
AK,
I'm not positive, but I think the max draft picks you can trade are 5 years in the future.
Posted by: LakerLarry | July 31, 2007 at 10:31 PM
We have our own trio BYNUM< ODOM It matches well with GARNETT
Posted by: Staples 24 | July 31, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Luigi,
Did the last decade simply not happen? What parts of 'never' are you going to defend since history has already proven you absolutely wrong? Kobe has already improved and won on teams before. He was an integral part of a three-peat remember? And, the other players didn't exactly love him then either. Difference is they were all mature and serious and knew they were role-players and played their roles. You put that exact same kind of team around Kobe right now, and the Lakers would be title contenders every year. Suddenly everyone will be talking about how great a leader Kobe is. Brown can't be led by anyone. His stint on both of his teams proves this. Smush? Give me a break. Somehow that dude thinks he's a star in this league. He can't be led either. Vlad? Space cadet. How about Cook? He tossed a towel in the lap of an eight-ring coach. Then, proceeded to fail to hit a single shot for the rest of the season after that, almost. Somehow proving that he deserved more PT by bricking all his shots I guess.
Kobe can obviously win and win big when he's surrounded by the right type of guys. Just watch Team USA and you'll see. If you are not blind. But, we've seen All-Stars follow Kobe over and over again (even if it's anecdotally). He's led them in All-Star games and in exhibition games. He hasn't played with another All-Star in a real game for over three years now. So we must look to exhibition games and see what our eyes see.
Now, why do great players follow Kobe, but these scrubs can't? But, then again, some of these scubs have yet to follow anyone, even their own coaches. That says more about them than it does Kobe, in my opinion.
--FearlessWhackJob
Posted by: FearlessWhackJob | July 31, 2007 at 10:38 PM
taliq
"Let me get this str8, u don't think the dude plays team ball but you want him to stay with your team. In other words you want the lakers to continue losing?? You sure you're a laker fan"
look, kobe wanted to prove a point, win without shaq and secure his legacy. i'm holding kobe accountable. kobe can't blow up the team, then decide to quit. if kobe is, in fact, the "best player on the planet", i want him to prove it. there have been plenty of great shooting guards over the years, most of those cats had to struggle just to smell a champioship, some never see it. kobe got spoiked early in his career and decided that he didn't need anybody. if kobe is truly the "best player on teh planet", he'll need to prove it in a team envionment as the #1 guy.
also, trading kobe for pennies on the dollar doesn't make any sense. i say, let him play out his contract, then take the cap space. hopefully, in 2009 we can try to get somone good in free agency.
Posted by: KLBeast | July 31, 2007 at 10:39 PM
AK,
Just like KG, a bad deal means no deal. What is good for Miami is not good for the Lakers? Grant has a perrenial knee injury and that was known since he was with Portland. At 14M and rising that is more ridiculous as it is. At least, what I proposed were mere combination of draft picks and other serviceable players. If my proposal would not hold through, then at least think of another way, don't accept a deal that is bummer. That's GM 101 - how do you spend or exchange the $28M that will make your team at par or better? If you're familiar with Kupchak as a player, he was similar Grant, almost lame and weak knees.
Posted by: Edwin Gueco | July 31, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Jeff:
JO was playing behind Rasheed Wallace. Bynum's playing behind Kwame.
There's just no way you can compare the two with a straight face!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: socalife | July 31, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Laker Larry,
Oh, you may be right about a 5 pick limit. I honestly have no idea, since nobody ever trades that many picks to begin with. I was just illustrating the absurd amount of picks it would take just to make that approach match salaries.
I also just remembered that you can't trade future picks in
consecutive years, which is another hitch.
AK
Posted by: Andrew Kamenetzky | July 31, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Michael A,
"some of the deals you're offering, the teams would be crazy to take them. You're simply asking for too much."
Specific example, please? If you let me know which deal you think is so lopsided, I'll give you my reasoning.
I should point out to you that there are a lot of people currently saying the Celtics gave away way too much to
get KG, and that they were crazy to strip the team down so thin.
And a lot of people were saying that the Lakers would be crazy to trade a bunch of players for Kevin Garnett.
But the pure fact is that superstars (of which there are maybe 10 in the league) very rarely change teams
anymore. KG is the first one since Shaq. To get a true superstar in the current CBA, you've got to give until
it hurts and then give some more.
I'm not saying any particular team here would definitely take whatever deal the Lakers offered. I'm almost certain
that Detroit wouldn't accept a deal that gave up two of their top 3 and broke up the team that has made it to the
conference finals the last 5 years running. On the other hand, a team like Milwaukee or Atlanta that could give
up a few good players and still HAVE a few other good players AND the best player in the leauge, that would
instantly make them at least a playoff team and possibly championship contenders in the East.
And the more important point is that if there are multiple teams being dealt with, then the price acquired goes up.
Kobe's initial 3-teams that he would accept trades to was really only 1 team, the Bulls. The Knicks at the time
had a few good young players, but the Lakers would have had to take on a big crappy contract or two to match
Kobe's salary, so they were out. Phoenix wasn't interested in breaking up their core team, so they were out.
Thus Chicago is the only legitimate trade partner Kobe has offered. (though since New York acquired Zach
Randolph, they've become a possibility, since they could give up either Zach or Eddy Curry and some of the
young-uns and still be very competitive in the East.
With Chicago knowing that they are the only team that has a chance to make a deal, I can imagine the sort of deal
they'd offer the Lakers - "Yeah, we'll give you Mike Sweetney, Victor Khryapa, Chris Duhon, and we'll sign and
trade PJ Brown to match salaries. Oh and we'll throw in a draft pick... second round... conditional"
If Kobe were to add all the other teams I mentioned to his list (which he won't, of course), then when Chicago hears
that Atlanta has countered the Lakers' offer with Joe Johnson, Marvin Williams, Lorenzen Wright, and two future
first rounders, then Chicago considers the possibility of having to face a lineup of Kobe, Josh Smith, Acie Law,
Al Horford, Josh Childress and Shelden Williams in ADDITION to the improved Boston lineup, and maybe they
re-think their offer and decide they'd rather have Kobe on THEIR side during the playoffs.
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | July 31, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Reality Check Time,
"We should make him play out his contract then work a sign and trade when he wants to opt out. "
Okay, you've just presented a contradiction here. If we MAKE him stay and play when he doesn't want to, he will opt
out and walk away and all the Lakers will get is the cap space that he frees up. There's absolutely no way that Kobe
would agree to a sign and trade if the Lakers forced him to play on the slow-rebuild-express for two more years of
his prime.
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | July 31, 2007 at 10:52 PM
AK,
"You can't just substitute 15 mil in cash for Brian Grant. "
My thoughts at the time of the trade was that they should have taken Eddie Jones instead of Brian Grant. They took
Grant because he was the closest thing to a center on Miami's roster. At least Jones would have played for his
bloated contract - he was a decent defender and a decent outside shooter and would have made a good (though
highly overpaid) backup for the Lakers. Grant was dead weight. Money paid out for basically 0 production.
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | July 31, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Edwin,
They needed to take on Grant to match salaries. It's that simple. There's only so many players you can throw together to equal 14-15 mil in salary. They also needed to get that trade done ASAP, because they were risking losing Kobe to free agency. So assuming they wanted to keep Kobe (which they obviously did), they couldn't just tell Miami, "Hey, we'll wait for something better." That wasn't really an option. Throw in a reluctance to trade within their own conference (which I personally think is an overrated fear, but oh well) and the fact that Shaq was only willing to be extended on maybe 3 or 4 teams, and the Lakers were very much stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Also, Grant was coming of a season where he played 76 games and never missed more than 10 games during his entire time in Miami. So while his knees were certainly an issue (and the Lakers certainly wouldn't have taken him if they didn't have to), there also wasn't necessarily a reason to automatically assume they'd get shot to hell in such a hurry.
AK
Posted by: Andrew Kamenetzky | July 31, 2007 at 11:02 PM
I NOMINATE LAKERLARRY FOR THE PRESIDENCY IN 2008
"The KG deal wasn't good for our team. Boston may proper for a year or so, but then they are doomed to mediocrity or the lottery for years to come. All their young talent will be gone and they'll be eating some monster contracts."
The guy's talking out of both sides of his mouth (a$$ too). Had KG joined LA, LakerLarry (and the rest of the kobe loyalist) will say KG is the messiah and kobe is god.
i suppose the lakers weren't "doomed" to mediocrity when shaq left. let me see what's we've accomplished the past 3 years:
*worst record in laker franchise team history in 2005
*.500 club in the regular season over the past 3 years
*below .500 in the playoffs
*our biggest free agency signing is our former backup PG
....but wait, we did accomplish the following:
*kobe made history by being the youngest to SCORE 19000 points
*kobe made history by SCORING 40+ points in the month of march 2007
*kobe made history by SCORING 50+ points 5 consecutive games
*kobe made history by single-handedly getting the lakers into the 2007 playoffs sqeaking by with a 42-40 team record
*kobe made history by being the biggest laker jerk in team history
i guess all is not lost, at least we made history.
Posted by: KLBeast | July 31, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Gunner and KL,
You both rejoice and hope that Kobe will be staying on a crappy Lakers team for the next two years... therefore, it is official. YOU ARE NOT LAKER FANS. YOU PUT YOUR HATRED OF KOBE ABOVE YOUR DESIRE TO SEE THE LAKERS SUCCEED.
And I know you don't have the balls to acknowledge that truth. All you can say is "Kobe this" and "Kobe that"... but you cannot deny that you would rather see the Lakers fail than succeed as long as Kobe is on the team. In fact, I'll bet your response to this post will be another dig at Kobe instead of an admission that hating Kobe is your #1 priority. ANYONE WHO LETS HATE DEFINE THEM WILL NEVER BE HAPPY.
Wait... why am I even writing this post when you've already said it yourselves?
Gunner:
"Hey, that's fine with me. The longer old Kobiatch is here the more fun it is watching his circus acts."
KL:
"i want kobe to say in LA to finish what he started....fulfilling his legacy WITHOUT SHAQ."
You do not have the best interests of the Lakers at heart. YOU DO NOT BLEED PURPLE AND GOLD.
Prove me wrong.
Posted by: hal9000 | July 31, 2007 at 11:11 PM
You have to wonder how things would have been had we traded for JO instead of LO (I think JO was on the block then too). While some would argue that we got the 10th pick for Shaq, think of how high we coulda gotten with the suckiness that is Indiana. And also while you can make an argument that LO is better than JO...I think it's a question of who fits in more.
Still I love me some LO. And it is pointless to look back. Like it or not, dismal or not, we're gonna have to go from here. How do we get better players around Kobe, and how do we speed up our prospects' growth? I think a strict defensive minded brain washing is needed...with HOF vids daily for Socks.
Posted by: Faith | July 31, 2007 at 11:17 PM
HEY KOBE, PLEASE READ THIS POST
You suck. You and your stupid attitude has transformed a championship laker team to a joke. I hope you're happy with what you have done.
You're stupid bloated head got way too big during the championship run. You erroneously bought into the "Kobe is the 'air' apparent to jordan". You let your stupid fans chanting "kobe MVP" get into your head.
Let me tell you something, YOU AIN'T NO MVP, i'll grant you a meaningless All-Star MVP, but you ain't no league MVP.
You act like your poop don't smell and that guys around the league should kiss your a$$ to play with you, well, it look like all you're going to get is superficial "kobe is the best in the planet" and a big "F-U" behind your back.
Shaq O'Neal and Smush Parker are both laughing their a$$es off at your stupidity. Please give us more to talk about and have a nervous breakdown. Please give us a few more laughs when you prance around pumping your fist when you break another meaningless scoring record.
You have a nice day Mrs. Bryant (i'm not referring your wife either)
Posted by: KLBeast | July 31, 2007 at 11:19 PM
PLEASE BRING JUAN CARLOS NAVARRO!!!!
The dude is yet an all star in Europe, one of the 3 best european players. He is not a rookie or a youth prospect. He will contribute from the first minute.
plus,
Pau Gasol want to play with him!
BRING JUAN CARLOS NAVARRO AND TRADE FOR GASOL!
Bring the CATALAN POWER DUO to LA!
Posted by: Alexinho17 | July 31, 2007 at 11:19 PM
AK,
Well with due respects with your views, you have the same thinking as Kupchak, always thinking for the welfare of another team to match salaries, as if trading players is a crossword puzzles. If it doesn't fit, don't force it. We lay the blame today on bum roster with over the cap because of that kind of thinking. As KL and Gunner are saying, why chase a reluctant player? Lakers should control the ball not the players control the Lakers. Secondly, if Kupchak and Buss have not found a suitable replacement for their Superstars, why did they rant in public w/ the Big Crybaby? They should have done their homework first. Thirdly, If Miami could not find solutions through their players, then look for 3rd team, 4th team, why trade in haste because we're SCARED of Kobe or trying to please Shaq. That's baloney! It should be Lakers First policy, not Kobe first, not Shaq first.
Posted by: Edwin Gueco | July 31, 2007 at 11:25 PM
ATTENTION KOBE LOYALIST WHO HAVE ARGUED WITH ME THAT GUYS DON'T TAKE LESS MONEY TO HELP A TEAM
"The Celtics are almost certain to be a luxury-tax payer in the next two seasons, but the lower numbers in Garnett's final three years could lead to sufficient flexibility that enables Boston management to use its mid-level exception to put an extra role player or two around its new star trio."
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&page=kgnewdeal
Looks like my boy, Kevin Garnett, is willing to take less money so the Celtics will have some availibiliy to get some help for a championship run over the next 2-3 years.
Now that's class.....kobe should take notes.
Posted by: KLBeast | July 31, 2007 at 11:27 PM
For what it's worth, Hollinger is not impressed....
http://www.nysun.com/article/59572?page_no=1
John Hollinger
NY SUN
Who knew Isiah Thomas would spawn imitators? The blockbuster trade of Kevin Garnett to the Celtics yesterday came straight out of Zeke's playbook: It mortgaged all of Boston's future assets, puts them way over the luxury tax, and gives them a narrow window in which to contend before it all comes crumbing down.
Pulling off yesterday's titanic deal required a huge dowry for Garnett's former team, Minnesota: Rising star Al Jefferson, promising wing Gerald Green, troubled point guard Sebastian Telfair, steady role player Ryan Gomes, the expiring contract of Theo Ratliff, two first-round draft choices, and a partridge in a pear tree.
Boston also agreed to a generous three-year contact extension for Garnett that will pay him in excess of $20 million a year until he's 35 and will be paying luxury tax for years to come. As with the Knicks and the Stephon Marbury trade, the Celtics did this because they want to become relevant again in a crowded sports market. The hope is that his addition will put the Celtics into the Finals within the next two years, and it just might work.
But many have placed the Eastern Conference tiara on Boston's head already, which I believe is seriously jumping the gun. In fact, over the past couple days I've come across an unexpected obstacle — having to explain exactly how and why all the "nobodies" in the NBA are not created equal.
I can't even tell you how many comments I've read in the past 48 hours, whether in papers or my inbox, with the supposition that, "if Cleveland could win the East with LeBron James and a bunch of nobodies," then Garnett's arrival in Boston — pairing him with All-Stars Paul Pierce and Ray Allen — virtually guarantees the Celtics the conference title.
Apparently these people feel there are only two kinds of basketball players — those with shoe commercials and those without — and further, that the players in the latter category all form one giant huddled mass under the banner of "role players" whose impact on wins and losses is utterly negligible.
So perhaps it's time to look at how things are back in the real world, and show why the Celtics are far from a lock to win the Eastern Conference despite their imposing trio.
If this were a 3-on-3 league, then indeed the Celtics would be overwhelming favorites. But the trade for Garnett, along with the previous draft day deal for Allen, absolutely denuded the Celtics' roster of secondary talents — six heavily used players from a year ago have new homes because of the trades. Boston's fourth and fifth starters, at present, would be second-year point guard Rajan Rondo and fourth-year center Kendrick Perkins.
Beyond those two, the bench looks to be a total joke. Former Net scrub Brian Scalabrine, second-year forward Leon Powe, and two second-round draft picks — Glen Davis and Gabe Pruitt — comprise the rest of the roster, although guard Tony Allen could add to that group by midseason if he can return from a knee injury. But hey, if Cleveland could win the East with LeBron and a bunch of nobodies, the Celtics should have no problem with their threesome and a bunch of nobodies, right?
Wrong. Cleveland's nobodies are actually decent players. None of them are anywhere near LeBron's stratosphere, which is what helps gives the impression that the Cavs are a one-man band. And in comparison to better-balanced teams like the Pistons and Bulls, they tend to look that way.
But compare them to the Celtics, and suddenly their nobodies start looking pretty good. Consider the frontcourt, for instance. Last season, according to my Player Efficiency Rating (PER, my perminute rating of a player's statistical performance), Garnett put up a PER of 24.2, the eighth-best mark in the league. Meanwhile, Cleveland's starting power forward, Drew Gooden, only managed a 16.6. That's a huge advantage for Boston.
But another Cleveland "nobody," Zydrunas Ilgauskas, put up an 18.0 from the center spot. Compare that to Perkins, who managed a measly 9.5, and it more than offsets the advantage Garnett held over Gooden.
The disparity gets worse as you dig deeper. Off the pine, the Cavs' Donyell Marshall and Anderson Varejao posted marks of 15.3 and 14.5 respectively — right around the league average, and miles ahead of what the Celtics can present. Powe did manage a 14.5 mark in limited minutes, though few think he can repeat the effort (he's a lightly regarded second-round pick who is undersized and has bad knees). But the other reserve big man, Scalabrine, posted a putrid 6.6. Again, the Cavs' nobodies have a huge advantage here.
Point guard is a wash — Cleveland's nobody, Larry Hughes, isn't any better than Rondo — and the Celtics have an edge on the wings, where LeBron (24.6) and Sasha Pavlovic (12.1) aren't enough to overcome Boston's Pierce and Allen (21.7 each). But statistically, even with three big stars to the Cavs' one, the Celtics don't appear to be any better off.
And there's one other huge consideration to take into account. PER glosses over most defensive plays, because only blocks and steals go into it, and thus players from top defensive teams tend to be underrated.
This is very important, because Cleveland is an elite defensive team. The Cavs last season ranked fourth in the NBA in Defensive Efficiency(mymeasureofateam's points allowed per 100 possessions), while the Celtics were a mediocre one, ranking 18th.
Thus, the comparison above only becomes relevant if one presumes Boston can be as good as Cleveland defensively. This is highly unlikely. While Garnett will be a huge improvement over the departed Jefferson, the other big import, Allen, is a very poor defensive player who won't be any better following off-season surgery on both ankles.
I should point out that the Celtics do have the kernel of a fantastic team here, and if they can somehow flesh it out with a couple of decent secondary players they probably will win the East. But it's hard to see how they'll be able to accomplish that task. Boston has no other trade assets left, so all the remaining work has to be done in free agency. But the Celtics are limited to their cap exceptions, and most of the top free agents are already gone. At best, they'll be able to get a couple of veteran role players that might give them PERs in the low teens and play solid defense.
And in the final analysis, it's not clear to me that the team Boston ends up with will be any better than the defending conference champs from Cleveland. Mind you, that's only one comparison — Chicago arguably has more talent than either of these teams, and of course Detroit and the defending division champion Raptors can't be discounted.
But take it from somebody who has followed the Nets closely the past couple of years — it takes a lot more than three stars to win a conference title. Jersey's three stars had a better supporting cast than the Celtics' motley crew, and last year they couldn't even crack .500.
The fact is, while the stars are the most important elements, those "nobodies" around them do matter. And when they are as bad as Boston's, then the Cavs' single ace really can trump the Celtics' three kings.
jhollinger@nysun.com
Posted by: 10milliondollarzen | July 31, 2007 at 11:34 PM
CHUCK HAYES TO KOBE BRYANT: "F-U"
Rockets, Hayes reach agreement on four-year contract
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2956734
Okay, i'm starting to feel a little sorry for Lil Kobe, nobody wants to be on kobe's team. boo-hoo-hoo, the Big Loner is eating lunch all by himself in the playground.
Posted by: KLBeast | July 31, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Garnett is a liar
'There was no way I was going to be able to go to another team in this league, have two caliber players that I have, Doc, I mean the staff, no way, there was no way I was going to be able to duplicate that in anything. So I feel like I made the right decision for not only me but for my family.”"
1 month before, his agent say that in not way or circumstances Garnett woulds go to Celtics. Remember? IS this guy crazy or he think Bostonians are that dumb?
Garnett is a hypocrite of the worst specie.
Remember that his agent also said that Phoenix was his first choice, not the Lakers?
Guess what, after hear that Phoenix were offering a down 15 million contract, he cameback to his old discurse: I will like to say in Minny.
I don't respect at all a hypocrite.
I prefer a "tell it like it is" as Kobe, even if that is twisted for haters with their obscure agenda .
Posted by: jorema | July 31, 2007 at 11:40 PM
LET SEE IF TROY HUDSON SAYS "F-U" TO KOBE?
Hudson to become free agent, teaming with KG in Boston an option
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2956359
Looks like it. Man, is kobe such a jerk that nobody wants to have anything to do with the guy? Maybe kobe can go play b-ball in the Euro league. I think the Italian team is looking for a SG.
"Now, Hudson could be headed to Boston with his good buddy. As the roster stands right now, the Celtics will start next season with second-year pro Rajon Rondo running the point, creating a need for a more experienced player either to start at the position or come off the bench for big minutes."
Hey kobe loyalist, you see how being nice to other will pay off? Boston gutted its existing team to get Garnett and now Troy Hudson is willing to play for peanuts with KG and company to compete for a championship.
Hey, RMA what happened to guys not willing to less money to win? Looks like Hudson is an example of guys willing to take less money for championship opportunities. haha...$hits and giggles for KLBeast.
Posted by: KLBeast | July 31, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Fearlesswhackjob,
"Knowing that I’m trying to find the best scenario for myself, my family, basketball-wise; this came out as the best scenario. I do have a place in L.A. L.A is L.A. I can’t, you know, knowing the Kobe situation is up in the air;"
Im not sure what you are arguing here. KG says here that he clearly didnt know about Kobe staying. Im not saying that its all about Kobe...but obviously it was in the back of KG's head. Remember he did deny Boston once, probably thought about LA, but once he knew it probably wouldnt happen he didnt give it second thought and just went for Boston.
If Kobe is certain to be there...you dont think KG thinks about LA twice????
Remember, the ORIGINAL trade offer that supposedly Glen Taylor had agreed to was Bynum, Cook, draft picks, Kwame.
So perhaps then, if Garnett knew that Odom was not in the deal and the Lakers still had Odom and Kobe..isnt that better than Pierce and Allen???
Posted by: The Lake-Show | July 31, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Regardless of the heartbreak of the KG mess, my first problem with Mitch K. is that our team could have looked something like this with little effort:
Kobe
Baron Davis
Lamar Odom
Carlos Boozer
fill in the rest...
All it took was some brains and some guts. Instead we spent money on bozos that can't get us squat on the open market. Problem is that MK will be here long after Kobe is gone...
Posted by: Lands | August 01, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Hal9000
“You both rejoice and hope that Kobe will be staying on a crappy Lakers team for the next two years... therefore, it is official. YOU ARE NOT LAKER FANS. YOU PUT YOUR HATRED OF KOBE ABOVE YOUR DESIRE TO SEE THE LAKERS SUCCEED.”
Trading kobe for pennies on the dollar will not get us to a better place. I would be okay with trading for draft picks and expiring contracts then try like hell to get Durant (assuming Durant pans out), Wade or some or whoever good is available. All it takes is having a true superstar to anchor the team. Look at shaq when shaq arrived in 1996. Look at Pierce in Boston. I can be done, but I’ll be painful.
“And I know you don't have the balls to acknowledge that truth. All you can say is "Kobe this" and "Kobe that"... but you cannot deny that you would rather see the Lakers fail than succeed as long as Kobe is on the team.”
Not true, I’d like to see kobe grow up and take responsibility for the team that he wanted. I’ve already conceded any hopes for a championship run after the shaq trade. I knew kobe would win a bunch of scoring titles and I knew that nobody would want to join LA. I didn’t think it’d be this bad though.
“In fact, I'll bet your response to this post will be another dig at Kobe instead of an admission that hating Kobe is your #1 priority. ANYONE WHO LETS HATE DEFINE THEM WILL NEVER BE HAPPY.”
I’ll let you determine the tone of my response.
“You do not have the best interests of the Lakers at heart. YOU DO NOT BLEED PURPLE AND GOLD.”
I would argue that I don’t BLINDELY bleed purple and gold. I’m a b-ball fan first, laker fan second. So I guess, by your definition, I don’t bleed P&G.
Posted by: KLBeast | August 01, 2007 at 12:18 AM
KL Beast thing that repeating ad nauseaum the same distorted diatribe
he will be influencing people and to kill Kobe appeal to fans.
He can change the mind of some dumb people, followers, those who believe anything they hear, as the ones
who voted twice for G.; BUSH. Those who can read between lines and underneath the camouflage see the truth, and that this
guy doesn't feel ashame of his futile predicament.
Doesn't he feel bored writing the same text over and over, without adding any quality and smartness...
Well, he is what he write, not more, not less.
By the way let's follow with plans to make his dream team:
Luke Walton, the cornerstone. Smush Parker, point guard. Shaq center. Sasha shooting guard. Brian cook power forward.
Posted by: jorema | August 01, 2007 at 12:21 AM
10milliondollarzen
"For what it's worth, Hollinger is not impressed...."
Hollinger is a "hater" cuz the Knicks are a joke and have been a kobe (ie, joke) for many years because the Knicks have a kobesque PG in Blackstarbury. Steph and Kobe should unite to create the stupidest tandum in NBA history.
Posted by: KLBeast | August 01, 2007 at 12:26 AM
HEY KOBE LOYALISTS. WHY HATE ON KG WHEN YOU HATE THOSE WHO HATE ON KOBE.
Jorema,
"Garnett is a hypocrite of the worst specie. I don't respect at all a hypocrite."
Two weeks ago, you were talking about how good Garnett was and how a true leader. Now your hating him? Or shall I say, now you becoming a HEATER?
OLD MAN KOBE! WHAT GOING ON MY MAN! NOW YOU SITTING AROUND ON PLANET PLUTO BY YOURSELF SINGING MJ'S SONG.
"I'M LOOKING AT THE MAN IN THE MIRROR. I'M ASKING HIM TO CHANGE HIS WAYS"
How sad it is that no one wants to come and play with you. I know now what the #24 stands for. That's how many months before you become old man Kobe and you so-called legacy will be extinct.
Posted by: Gunner | August 01, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Long Time Laker Fan,
I am down to trade Kobe. And if we do this, we keep Lamar.
Ive got two proposals:
Lakers get Arenas, Jamison
Wizards get Kobe, Vlad
Not too much danger here. Jamison's contract is actually more than Arenas, and his expires next year. Arenas would stay here in LA, Jamison could be signed for less because of his age.
Kobe still has Caron in Washington
Lakers Line up
PG Fisher
SG Arenas
SF Odom
PF Jamison
C Bynum
This is the status quo trade. Basically the same team. What they lose in Kobe to Arenas they get in Odom to Caron.
--------------------------------
Trade 2
Lakers get Ben Gordon, Tyrus Thomas, Ben Wallace, Sefelosha
Bulls get Kobe, Crittenton
Lakers get 3 Starters in this deal. Gordon scores points. Thomas will be a scorer and is a rebounder/shot blocker, probably future all-star. Wallace is the big contract, but he has a couple of years left. Sefelosha fits a need better than Crittenton. But this also lets the Bulls keep Heinrich, Deng, and then Kobe
Bulls would run line up of PG, Heinrich, SG Kobe, SF Deng, PF Nocioni C Noah.
Lakers line up
PG Fisher
SG Gordon/Sefelosha
SF Odom
PF Thomas
C Wallace
This team MAYBE goes down for a year, but has a higher ceiling. Gordon can be a scorer, but Tyrus Thomas has that big potential. He is probably a future Al Jefferson.
---------
Trade 3
Lakers Get Devin Harris, Josh Howard, Josh Smith
Mavs Get Kobe,
Hawks get Diop, Buckner,
Hawks get a true center, and a permiter defender
Mavs have Terry, Kobe, Dirk
I think Cuban could live with this:
Mavs:
PG Terry
SG Kobe
SF Stackhouse
PF Dirk
C Dampier
This is the closest thing to the Bulls trade of getting young, but proven talent
Lakers
PG Devin Harris
SG Josh Smith
SF Josh Howard
PF Lamar Odom
C Andrew Bynum
Posted by: The Lake-Show | August 01, 2007 at 12:36 AM
Lake-Show
"the ORIGINAL trade offer that supposedly Glen Taylor had agreed to was Bynum, Cook, draft picks, Kwame."
--------------
Nope. That's revisionist history on your part. Glen Taylor never agreed to any deal. What he did agree to was
to let the Laker's gm and the Timberwolves' gm talk and see if they could work something out. And the "original"
trade offer was the four way deal with Indiana and Boston involved. Glen Taylor had left for his honeymoon
before McHateful and Kupchak started discussing a deal with just the Lakers and Timberwolves, and the offer
was reportedly Bynum, Odom, Kwame, and the #19 pick. McHale rejected it because he didn't want a contract
as big as Odom's. At least that's what espn/si/fox reported.
I know of know report that the Lakers offered what you are suggesting or that Glen Taylor "agreed" to any deal.
If you can point us to a report (not a proposed trade by some fanboy on the internet, but a report from a legitimate
news agency) that claims that Glen Taylor agreed to the deal you described, then that would be helpful. I don't
think it exists.
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | August 01, 2007 at 12:36 AM
To All Laker Fans
This is my first time posting but i've followed this blog for all of the offseason and i fell i should say my piece.
Lamar was having a great season last year until he was injured. He made a fantastic impression on me the last game last year when he was carrying the team while kobe was on the bench. i think he went for thirty that night and if not for foul trouble we would have taken that game. In fact in that particular game the lakers lost their rhythm when kobe came back in and started trying to take over while not allowing his team to continue their push.
Kobe is the best in the leage no doubt. But Lamar is such a smooth player.
Lets really look at what we would get in JO sure he is a really good defense and consistent offense. But Lamar is always a triple double threat and the best rebounder we have gives so many teams match up problems because of his versatility. I think we would loose even if we just traded straight up. Now if you add andrew bynum in the mix no we're really out.
Give Lamar a chance! We question his heart too much. He had a great season besides the injury despite loosing his son if that's not heart i dont know what is.
The Key to next year is lamar and bynum.
Posted by: Mainor | August 01, 2007 at 12:39 AM
KOBE = BIG MICHAEL JACKSON
"I'M LOOKING AT THE MAN IN THE MIRROR. I'M ASKING HIM TO CHANGE HIS WAYS"
Hal9000,
I'm a Lakers fan. Just not a Kobe Fan.
And this is not a true purple and gold team. We'll be true again in 24 months.
and I'm counting....how sweet it will be!
"I'M LOOKING AT THE MAN IN THE MIRROR. I'M ASKING HIM TO CHANGE HIS WAYS"
Posted by: Gunner | August 01, 2007 at 12:44 AM