The softer side of the roadie
(UPDATE - My take on the starting small forward question is added below the jump, for those interested.)
Not to poo poo the first opponent taking on the Lakers (5PM PST, KCAL) during back to back away contests, but the Memphis Grizzlies are a decidedly more "beatable" team than the New Orleans Hornets awaiting the Lakers on Wednesday. Who will be the starting small forward during this theoretical beat down opportunity? It's a call between Luke Walton and Trevor Ariza, with Phil Jackson often reserving the right to flip flop based on matchups. PJ floated the notion of going with Ariza during yesterday's practice as a counter to Rudy Gay, which would mean Walton coming off the pine, which suits Big Red's kid just fine. Granted, he personally thinks he's produced better as a starter, but again, no biggie one way or the other. Besides, Walton's ankle still hurts like a mother no matter when he enters a game, so to some degree, who cares? The Lakers could always go with Kobe at the 3, but then they'd be killing a slam dunk All-Star campaign at guard (although Kobe would probably get voted in listed as a center).
For those curious, the numbers for Walton as a starter vs. a sub don't bear much difference one way or the other. He does tend to turn the ball over a little more off the bench, but then again, he also shoots 33% better at the stripe for whatever reason while playing in the second unit, so that might offset the butterfingers. Ariza's splits are harder to evaluate, since the starter-sub discrepancy includes Orlando stats produced while not playing much.
MORE ADDED BELOW THE JUMP
I had a doctor's appointment in the morning, so I needed to post today's links before adding my two cents. But I didn't want to spark a small forward debate without adding my thoughts. Let me preface this discussion by saying (for probably about the 50th time this season, but oh well) that I think "starting" remains, in most cases, an overrated and overblown topic. All in all, it doesn't reflect a player's impact nearly as much as his minutes or how often he finishes the game. People often regard the starting unit as proof of a "pecking order" or a player's "worth," when it often has more to do with creating the best overall fivesomes for both the first and second units, as well as creating beneficial matchups.
Personally, I would start Ariza in most cases. He's the better defender (and unlike Luke, can be used primarily for that role if need be) and adds a spark of energy to the opening group. But my rationale also has as much to do with what Walton can do for the second unit, rather than purely a "Luke vs. Trevor" issue. Walton brings another good ball handler and facilitator with quality triangular knowledge off the bench, which equals less onus on Jordan Farmar to put things in motion. The only other options are basically (when healthy) Sasha Vujacic (more shooter than true play maker) or Javaris Crittenton, playing in Sasha's absence and often battling the urge to "prove himself," which often leads to him trying to do too much and turning the ball over even more often). Thus, the ball is often in Farmar's hands, and lately that's led to some over-dribbling and a lack of motion while trying to organize. Walton's presence could add some fluidity to the proceedings, perhaps offsetting to some degree what the loss of Andrew Bynum has meant for the bench's early season dominance.
That said, even while proposing to start Ariza, I can still see the argument for going with Walton. The second unit tends to play more uptempo, which is clearly a better fit for Ariza's game than Walton's. The first unit already has Kobe Bryant and Lamar Odom, both of whom are capable of breaking down a defender and taking it to the hole. Save Farmar or maybe Crittenton (if he remains in the rotation when Sasha's healthy), the bench unit is comprised of either shooters or bigs, so an additional threat to slash and attack can create more options. Plus, playing Luke with the first unit's better defenders can help cover his weaknesses on that front (although, quite frankly, they're not nearly as bad as some of his detractors make them out to be).
In the end, Phil's current approach of going by matchup is probably as sensible as setting one starter in stone. Neither Walton nor Ariza is playing decidedly better or worse in either role (as opposed to, say, Vlad Radmanovic, who's been considerably better off the bench). Nor does any unhappiness appear to be brewing over the direction Jackson wants to go. And let's be honest. It's not like Phil's hemming and hawing between Kobe Bryant and Coby Karl. We're talking about two role players. Neither is All-Star quality. Both would likely come off the bench on most teams. Even if you think one is a better call than the other, I don't think a flat out obvious choice is staring the Zen Master in the face.
Doesn't make the debate any less interesting. But still, a perspective should be maintained. I wouldn't drive yourself nuts over the call.
-AK
Subscribe to this Blog What is RSS?
FIRST TO POST..SO EVERYBODY IS GOING TO SEE THIS FIRST!
LAKERS ARE GOING TO LOSE ONE OF THE NEXT TWO!
Posted by: never | January 08, 2008 at 09:09 AM
Never
You're not first with that prediction.
Posted by: Vman | January 08, 2008 at 09:28 AM
One more comment on the Luke v. Trevor starting debate. As much as I like what Ariza brings to the table, and as convinced, as I am that eventually he will be the full time starter over Luke if both remain Lakers. Why was it that Ariza wasn't getting very much PT at Orlando? Is it perhaps the Vangundy thought that another player was a better fit for what the team needed? Just as the 'better' team doesn't always win, perhaps some coaches don't start the 'better' player for the benefit of the team. Each coach tries their best to put the best combination of players on the floor and Phil is no different. Phil may think differently than we armchair coaches, but he has nine rings, a ton of wins in the NBA and CBA as a coach and I don't. He makes mistakes like all of us but when it comes to hoops I think he has an edge upon all us on the blog.
I get those that want Trevor to start, but Phil obviously is sticking with Luke for now because he thinks it is best for the team. It isn't because Luke is white, it isn't for fear of what Luke’s windbag, and pompous father might say on TV, it isn't because Phil doesn't want to win. It is because Phil has a different opinion of what he as coach wants on the floor. It could also be that he likes the impact Ariza has as a spark coming off the bench to impact the flow of a game. As long as the Lakers are winning 12 out of 15 games, Luke starting is fine with me.
Go Zen people. Just sit back and watch it all unfold. The Lakers season will play out as it is supposed to. Be thankful we have a good option over Luke at SF, appreciate that the team is winning with Luke as a starter. Don't worry be happy!
Eagleboy
Posted by: Eagleboy | January 08, 2008 at 09:35 AM
Walton's ankle still hurts a like mother
Posted by: dxtah | January 08, 2008 at 09:39 AM
First teamwork, now matching up well? Geez, it's like this team wants to, like, win or something.
How lame - all the cool kids are losing this year.
Posted by: Shaq, Wade, LeBron, the Knicks, Jazz | January 08, 2008 at 09:44 AM
Never,
I hope your right.
Regarding the Small Forwards, I believe matching the other SF's to our benefit is the way to go. If it is better to start Ariza against the more athletic SF's, then do it!!!
This is Luke Walton not #24. He should start adjusting to whatever role would be best for the team. He should be happy that he is playing for the Lakers!!!
Posted by: Charles | January 08, 2008 at 09:57 AM
SECOND TO POST...
LAKERS WIN BOTH!!!
Posted by: keifo | January 08, 2008 at 09:58 AM
Luke is still suffering from ankle injuries, Kwame is still over weight, and Vlad Rad is still MIA.
And in other news, the sky is still blue and grass is still green.
Posted by: BYNUM FAN | January 08, 2008 at 10:06 AM
THIRD TO POST
LAKERS WILL WIN OR LOSE THERE NEXT GAME I GAROH TEEEEE IT
FONZUHRELLI
Posted by: fonzuhrelli | January 08, 2008 at 10:28 AM
If the Lakers can get a blowout tonight and rest the 4th, they have a better chance tomorrow.
Posted by: zen | January 08, 2008 at 10:30 AM
If the Lakers win both (meaning if they beat New Orleans in New Orleans on a back-to-back), it will be a major psychological victory for them, in that it will up the fear factor a bit when other teams play them, as well as jump them up the power rankings.
It will be a great win and support the mental toughness of the team. Hard to overemphasize the importance of mental thoughness.
By the way, kudos to Kupcheck for bringing in Ariza. When that trade happened, I didn't feel very good about it. It seemed a little crazy to me, but the Lakers are a significantly better team for Ariza's introduction. Good.
GO LAKERS!
Posted by: Jon K. | January 08, 2008 at 10:37 AM
The problem I have with the Luke vs Ariza decision is at some point the lakers need to make a decision who is going to get the bulk of the minutes if they want consistent play from that position. Platoons rarely work in the NBA and this whole match-up idea is more Phil speak so he doesnt have to decide.
Luke cannot improve guarding Gay, or any other SF, by sitting on the bench and Arize cant improve his shooting by sitting on the bench.
Players who get consistent minutes produce consistent results, those that dont, well dont, Its really simple.
Posted by: Laker Lover | January 08, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Those who get injured often should be considered for trade with a healthy player. If their frame of mind or physical frailties and handicap are not attuned to NBA standards, why insist on them? Are they Superstars?
Problem if they are healthy, they avoid defense so as not to get hurt. Fisher has been hurt before but look at him, he would not back down to an attacking player whether they are center or power forward, Fisher would give them his body. That is why he is admired and respected by fans. With Walton and Sasha, they will let a slashing player pass through and get ready to inbound the ball for a fast break which often result to T/O.
Posted by: Edwin Gueco | January 08, 2008 at 10:41 AM
AK/BK,
Looking at the draft 2003 when Luke was taken in the 2nd round, the Clippers got this C from Team Greece - Sofoklis Schorsanitis who never played with them. What is the rule at this time, can the Lakers get him without trading anybody?
Posted by: Edwin Gueco | January 08, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Just my opinion, but I think Mike T has an edge over Phil Jackson in coaching.
Posted by: Amazing_Happens | January 08, 2008 at 10:55 AM
On the Subject of Walton:
Has not elevated his game - is not getting more
comfy with the NBA - still looks like a rookie. I
don't know exactly why - maybe it's the lack of
a guiding light (like Kareem with AB). I like him
- I don't think that he will be with this team
for long.
Posted by: Paulie | January 08, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Amazing.
Well of course Mike T. has an edge over Phil. He knows more about basketball than anyone else on the planet - probably even more than God himself. Who else but a Supreme Being can see how great Kwame is when none of the rest of us mere mortals can see it???? I think Kwame is a benefit to the Lakers becasue they have no other true big that can defend. However, if we could get a legit big that could defend decently for Kwames expiring contract that didn't kill the Lakers salary cap wise I would do it.
Eagleboy
Posted by: | January 08, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Mike T has yet to explain how Kwame got outworked by a nobody on Indiana named Harrison. If it was Bynum we would be sure to see how that showed Bynum could be "pushed around" by backup centers.
Posted by: Laker Lover | January 08, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Uh, I would start CARON BUTLER instead. Oh, blasted, we decided to keep Luke instead. =(
Posted by: Wasabi | January 08, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Laker Lover,
"Platoons rarely work in the NBA and this whole match-up idea is more Phil speak so he doesnt have to decide."
At this point it is not clear who is better. If Ariza could shoot reasonably well from the outside, then IMO he would clearly be better. So far he hasn't shown that.
But then the decision has to be made as far as who starts and who doesn't.
Does the second string function better with Ariza or with Walton? Since the trade and the injuries that have occurred during that time frame, the bench players have not been performing especially well. So, from that perspective too, it is difficult for PJ to determine who should start.
Posted by: exhelodrvr | January 08, 2008 at 12:19 PM
FIRST TO POST..SO EVERYBODY IS GOING TO SEE THIS FIRST!
LAKERS ARE GOING TO LOSE ONE OF THE NEXT TWO!
Posted by: never | January 08, 2008 at 09:09 AM
Possibly. The difference this time around is we have LO against the Hornets. It would be nice to get both, but it would be difficult especially on a back to back. We'll see.
Posted by: Nemaia Faletogo | January 08, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Just my opinion, but I think Mike T has an edge over Phil Jackson in coaching.
Posted by: Amazing_Happens | January 08, 2008 at 10:55 AM
LOL. Now that's the funniest post I've ever read on here. Thanks for the laughs!!!
Posted by: Nemaia Faletogo | January 08, 2008 at 12:32 PM
CNN reporting tornadoes in Memphis right now!
Hope they got Kwame chained to a telephone pole or something..
Posted by: HAB | January 08, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Hey,
In John Hollinger's article where he picks his all-star teams, he made this
comment, with respect to the argument to who should be the backup C
on the team (with certain fans pushing for Camby or Chandler or Kaman):
"Actually, the No. 3 center out West right now is probably Andrew Bynum,
who has put up an impressive 21.82 PER in 28.9 minutes per game for the
Lakers. It's a tough crowd out West so it will take more than that to earn him
a spot, but don't be shocked if he's on the West roster a year from now in
Phoenix."
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | January 08, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Hey, since SF is up in the air and PJ is confused about who to start, I volunteer to start at PF. I may only be 5'10", be 47 years old and have no low post skills, but I do have 6 fouls to give and I will work for only 10K a game (which is quite cheap by NBA standards).
Posted by: LM | January 08, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Eagleboy
Ariza wasnt starting in Orlando because they spent 18 mil per year on Rashard Lewis. They needed more outside shooting to so teams cldnt pack the paint on Howard.
MH
Posted by: michael h | January 08, 2008 at 12:51 PM
By going with a combo of Ariza and Luke, the lakers are saying neither is good enough to play starters minutes at the SF position.
Thats not the recipe for a championship team as I have suggested many times because a team will not get consistent production without consistent minutes. Hence the whole match-up philosophy while sounding good, is dependent on having consistent performance from each player without getting consistent minutes, a flawed philosophy in my opinion.
Posted by: Laker Lover | January 08, 2008 at 01:09 PM
Patty (Sherman Oaks, CA): John, this is probably a tired question, but if the Lakers packaged Kwame (expiring K) and one of their young players, who could they realistically land to help this team be that much more dangerous? By the way, I LOVE your rankings formula. I use to think they were a crock, but have noticed they are often eerily accurate.
John Hollinger: (3:55 PM ET ) Thanks ... I think. As far as L.A., the biggest target would be Jason Kidd, but that probably won't happen unless the Nets go back under .500. That's the thing with the trade deadline -- it's a liltle bit of a fishing expedition because the guy you want needs to be out there.
Posted by: hariyahu | January 08, 2008 at 01:13 PM
Mike T,
Since you're so obsessed with defense being the key, consider this from the
San Antonio Express-News:
" If there’s one thing they’ve been doing well during an otherwise
middling 10-game stretch, it’s defend people. They just aren’t scoring
points.
During that span, the Spurs have allowed just 87.3 points per game,
better than anyone in the NBA outside of Detroit. But they are scoring
92.1 point per game, better than nobody in the NBA outside of Toronto
and the Clippers.
Not surprisingly, the Spurs are 6-4 over that stretch – or one game better
than exactly mediocre. In those four losses, the Spurs averaged
82.5 points. "
In other words, despite playing some of the best D in the league and also
playing at one of the slowest PACEs in the league, the Spurs are 6-4 over
the last 10. Personally, I prefer the Lakers giving up 101.2 points per
game and winning 8 of their last 10.
Posted by: Long Time Laker Fan | January 08, 2008 at 01:14 PM
Long Time laker fan......Very good post.....Thats a point that some people seem to miss......Thankyou
Posted by: Thirty2 | January 08, 2008 at 01:33 PM
Eagleboy....IMO Trevor had trouble cracking the rotation in Orlando because of his poor outside shooting. Orlando is looking for players who can stretch the defense to allow Dwight Howard room to do that monster thing of his. That and the fact that Turkoglu is playing very well for them and they recently invested a ton of money in Rashard Lewis made Trevor's minutes scarce. If you look at the trade, they probably figured a guy like Brian Cook could also hit threes. I believe that Trevor's slashing style just didn't fit in well with Orlando, while his athleticism and ability to drive the ball to the hole fulfill something that the Lakers were lacking at the 3 spot. As to who should start, I'll leave that to 9 Rings and trust in his judgement to work the matchups in the Lakers' favor.
J O M O
Just One Man's Opinion.
Posted by: bronxlakerfan | January 08, 2008 at 01:46 PM
Andrew Z,
Bynum is definitely showing some fire this season. The two moments I remember the most was the Indy game on Sunday when he got fired up after getting an And 1 against JO and against Amare on another And 1.
The most underrated and ignored storyline (I'm surprised AK/BK haven't mentioned this.) is that since Bynum missed those clutch free throws against Golden State he's been pretty consistent at the line. I love this kid, he identifies his weaknesses and he works on them. This kid's going to be special.
Posted by: Xodus | January 08, 2008 at 01:51 PM
LTLF, Thirty2,
I think MikeT's point is that getting your defense working is prolly more important than your offense if you are talking championships. Also, the fact that their big three hasn't played much together over the last 10 games has led to offensive inconsistency which is prolly the biggest reason the Spurs struggled. In the regular season, your offense can prolly help mask shortcomings, but in the playoffs, opponents will get plenty of time to dissect and untrack your O. D, once set, can never go away.
Suns are prolly a good example as well as an exception because of how well they execute offensively. They actually hung with the Spurs last year in the playoffs.
I do think, however, that we are better defensively last year inspite of Kwame not playing much this year (don't want to make this a Kwame/Bynum thing). It's just that I'd feel a lot better about your chances on the chip if we were giving up closer to 90 ppg than 100 ppg.
No reason we can't get there though.
Posted by: hariyahu | January 08, 2008 at 01:54 PM
Long Time Laker Fan - and thats why defense doesnt win championships, it keeps a team in games- offense wins championships.
You cant out-defend the other team and win if you cant score.
Posted by: Laker Lover | January 08, 2008 at 01:54 PM
"In other words, despite playing some of the best D in the league and also
playing at one of the slowest PACEs in the league, the Spurs are 6-4 over
the last 10. Personally, I prefer the Lakers giving up 101.2 points per
game and winning 8 of their last 10."
The problem is in the playoffs when teams buckle down and most of the time play a half court game, defense will be key in winning the series.... I still think this Laker team needs another defensive stopper to go along with Kobe.... Outside of him I really dont see a dominant defensive player who can shut down his man.... Offense will come and go as we see in both of the Boston games as well as some other games where the Lakers got torched, but defense should stay constant and should be the recipe for any championship team, that said I don't think Kwame is the answer though; Hence lacks help defense and rebounding skills, but I think his the best we have off the bench behind Bynum....RON RON where are you.... Just imagine
FISH
KOBE
RON RON
LO
BYNUM
I would give up anyone on our Bench to get him (serious)... Even take back a bad contract like Kenny Thomas from SAC....
How about Mimm, Critt and Kwame and a 2008 1st round pick for Ron Ron and Kenny Thomas
Posted by: Gino | January 08, 2008 at 02:03 PM
hariyahu......Giving up below a 100 points a game would be nice......I have a question before i go to work........
Are Paul Piearce,Ray Allen , and Garnett all great defenders.....or do they supply the offense and the rest of the team shut down the threats on the other team...?
Posted by: Thirty2 | January 08, 2008 at 02:06 PM
"CNN reporting tornadoes in Memphis right now!"
Not to worry. Kwame's calves are so powerful he will be able to hold his position until he is in the eye of the tornado, then he pick up a GIANT CAKE and huck that sucker up into the driving winds and BOOM! the tornado will dissipate and Kwame will be given a key to the city and a giant statue will be errected in front of FedExForum of Kwame holding his cake, his giant calves glistening in the breeze and then Kwame will come out and put up 4 points, 3 rebounds and go 1 for 6 from the line in 20 minutes of action before he fouls out... and Mike T will be posting, "See! See! NOBODY can stop the calves of Kwame Brown! NOOOObody!"
Posted by: TaosHum | January 08, 2008 at 02:10 PM
Gino,
Yep, I'd love Ron Ron on this team. I think with Phil, Kobe and Odom, we can tame the beast. Problem is that Maloofs won't want to trade him within the division, and most definitely to the hated Lakers. Getting a bad contract off their hands is a good way to start, but they'll need more than just Crit.
Ideally, we'd find a third team to offer them a promising PF as well. Somone like a Warrick or a Villanueva
Posted by: hariyahu | January 08, 2008 at 02:14 PM
hariyahu,
I'd hate to see Ron Ron on this team.
GO LAKERS!
Posted by: Jon K. | January 08, 2008 at 02:19 PM
Gino,
How are you and long time no blog?
"How about Mimm, Critt and Kwame and a 2008 1st round pick for Ron Ron and Kenny Thomas"
I would not want to give up JC instead make it two picks... Kenny Thomas is serviceable. However, I just don't think Sacto wants to help us at all.
2nd unit of Ronny, Vlad/Thomas, Ariza/Luke, Sasha/Carl, Farmar/JC wouldn't be bad...
Have a good one Gino.
Posted by: Charles | January 08, 2008 at 02:21 PM
The most underrated and ignored storyline (I'm surprised AK/BK haven't mentioned this.) is that since Bynum missed those clutch free throws against Golden State he's been pretty consistent at the line. I love this kid, he identifies his weaknesses and he works on them. This kid's going to be special.
Posted by: Xodus | January 08, 2008 at 01:51 PM
Xodus,
Andrew actually missed the two free throws against the Cavs. You're right though because since that time he's been making most of his free throws. This makes him even more valuable because he won't be a liability in close games and crunch time. He's also displayed a deft touch around the rim in being able to finish despite being fouled. I think he had 3 or 4 and one's against the Pacers on Sunday night. As long as he keeps up his attitude about working on the weaknesses in his game he'll be fine.
Go Lakers!!!
Posted by: Nemaia Faletogo | January 08, 2008 at 02:36 PM
Thirty2,
I think the only great defender on the Celtics is KG himself. Most of it is the team helping each other out - prolly because of TomT hopping on as the defensive co-ordinator for that team.
Which is why, though I don't necessarily agree with the opinion that getting Kwame in the starting 5 would make us better defensively. If you look at the big three (Spurs, Celtics, Pistons), none of them have a defensive monster at the C. And by that I mean, a strong burly C with cord-fed calves who is quick of feet. Duncan, Rasheed and KG are all agile 4/5s, but none of them can "seal" their man - certainly not a Yao or a Howard. So, though Kwame's gifts are rather unique (strong post defensive with quick feet), his offensive shortcomings are too glaring to justify a lot of playing time - unless the rest of the unit can make up for him.
I think it's more important that the team adopt a defensive mentality, and I daresay we may already have the personnel for it. Now, getting someone like Artest may be the easiest way to get to that elite level (mainly because of the match-up issues Artest provides on the offensive end), but if Ariza develops a reliable jump shot, we might still get there.
Posted by: hariyahu | January 08, 2008 at 02:41 PM
JonK,
I understand where you are coming from, but I do think that with the strong/stable personalities we have on this team, Artest's wild side would be kept relatively in check. His contract is not terribly expensive or long, and he truly is a two-way player. And think about this lineup:
Bynum/LO/Artest/Kobe/Fish - that would be a very tough unit. Bynum and LO would take care of the rebounding, Artest is strong enough to play the 4 against a lot teams, and allows LO to freelance a bit. Kobe/Artest would be a killer perimeter defensive unit. We'd be a match up nightmare for *every* team in the league.
I acknowledge the risk with chemistry that getting Artest would involve, but in my opinion the potential reward far outweighs the risk.
Posted by: hariyahu | January 08, 2008 at 02:48 PM
TaosHum
Love the idea of Kwame stopping the tornado by throwing a cake. Humorous!
Posted by: richard | January 08, 2008 at 02:48 PM
This was an article in the Chicago Tribune today.
"Since Kobe loves Luol so much, how about Deng and Wallace for Bynum, Radmanovic and Kwame's expiring contract? Wouldn't that appease Kobe, make them instantly more playoff-ready and give the Bulls one hell of a young group of bigs to go with their collection of littles? Which side wouldn't do this?" --Ashley, Chicago
"Lakers, Lakers, Lakers. Kobe doesn't love Luol so much. He seemed to hate the Lakers more. Actually, he hated Bynum last spring and summer. But what's happened is the Lakers have become one of the great stories of the NBA this season. Their defense is much better, their bench is much deeper and they are big up front. And Kwame Brown got hurt, which was a huge break. They had to play Bynum, and he's showing he could be an elite center. Kobe isn't going anywhere and never was. He hates to admit it, but he's better off, and the talk is the Lakers are looking hard to move Kwame's expiring contract for another piece and make a serious championship run."
Posted by: Nemaia Faletogo | January 08, 2008 at 02:56 PM
BREAKING NEWS!!!
Mike T. is actually Kwame Brown's mother.
That explains alot.
:)
Posted by: frank1rizzo | January 08, 2008 at 02:57 PM
Nemaia,
You're right it was the Cleveland game, thanks for the catch. Anyway, the fact that he said that moment would be the turning point for him and his FT shooting and he's turned the corner quickly. He already had a nice touch so it's not surprising that putting in more work led to such a drastic improvement.
The Sports Guy has Bynum's ceiling as the best center not named Yao or Dwight Howard, but I'm removing a ceiling. With his length, athleticism and soft touch the skies the limit for him.
Posted by: Xodus | January 08, 2008 at 03:00 PM
hariyahu
The "prolly" is kinda cute if you don't use it 14 times.
Posted by: Lakalova | January 08, 2008 at 03:03 PM
i'd love to see ron ron on the team. how about using kwame's expiring contract sending him to phili, miller goes to cavs, gooden to sac, and ron ron to LA. plus fillers and we'd probably take on a bad contract, but to team kobe LO Ron bynum and fish is something to dream of.
yeah wed lose a back up center but somebody can always be picked up.
Posted by: andand | January 08, 2008 at 03:05 PM
GO LA LAKERS @ 5pm!
Posted by: jay0aznboi626 | January 08, 2008 at 03:12 PM