Let me preface this post by stating that the Ron Artest-Trevor Ariza "swap" isn't a K Brother obsession, even if a string of posts over the last several days makes it reasonable to assume otherwise.  It just so happens the particular offseason storyline has popped up organically during some recent threads. Add another to that list.

After Monday's practice, I asked Artest about today's game against Houston, his first time facing the Rockets since leaving their roster. The Lakers being Ron's fifth team, he's certainly no stranger to competing against a franchise that once employed him. Players like to downplay these particular matchups ("It's just another game" being the most popular cliche.), but there's an undeniable charge from going mano y' mano with your old squad. Particularly when the situation involves getting traded or the team opts to let you go as a free agent, the latter applying to Artest.   On the surface, the makings of a garden-variety "gunning to drop 35 on your asses" matchup, but the specifics make things a little different.

Not only is he barely removed from his stint as a Rocket (five games into the new season), but time in Houston helped rebuild Artest's rep as a professional.  Even in a contract year that might prompt his best behavior and an established relationship with Rick Adelman, the "Ron Artest business" was considered a risky one.  The move paid off, as Artest played some of the best ball of his career and was regarded as a team leader, a tag not exactly littering his resume.  In the meantime, an unpredictability more quirky than volatile emerged for Artest.  He seemed genuinely happy in Houston, which hadn't always been the case in the past.  The feeling was mutual as fans mobbed him during the final moments of Houston's first round series against the Blazers. This moment put the "i" in "irony," which wasn't lost on Artest.

Ever since Ron Artest and his controversial NBA past became part of the Laker's present, there's been speculation a-plenty about who'll emerge the force keeping the small forward in check?  Will it be Phil Jackson, certainly no stranger to the art of reigning in eccentric/volatile personalities?  Kobe Bryant, the ultimate alpha male and the frequent target of Ron Ron's hero worship?  Derek Fisher, a vet who commands respect from even the biggest of superstar teammates?  Lamar Odom, Artest's buddy since childhood?  DJ Mbenga, something of an intimidating martial arts bad ass?  Well, add another name to the list of prospective calming forces:

Kyle Slavin.

The Second Coming's host recently penned an open letter to Artest about the importance of minding his P's and Q's while donning purple and gold.  In a nutshell, Slavin presents Ron's Laker stint as the best opportunity to define the story of his career.  Or rather edit that story's pages, what with all the missteps that have overshadowed Artest's work as one of the decade's best two-way players.  An early paragraph from Slavin sets a very clear tone:

    Let me be absolutely clear: you absolutely cannot mess this season up. You fail here, and you will never redeem your career again. You ruin this good thing we have going in LA, and the rest of your basketball days will be tarnished by it. In LA, we fans run deep. We know our basketball, we know our history, and we have more than a passing interest in the Lake Show. We will be here longer than you. We have more influence than you. Win us over, and you will be a Hall of Famer. Lose our faith, and you will never see this level of love again.

Sounds about right.  So there's one letter to a Laker, which got me thinking.  If y'all decided to type an opus to another member of the roster, what would you say and to which player?  Or would you just pick up where Slavin left off and tack on a little more for Artest's reading pleasure?

Thanks to True Hoop for the heads up.

AK

Thursday's Titans/Steelers palate-whetting appetizer notwithstanding,Sunday marks the full on launch of fantasy football season (and, from what I understand, actual football season as well). Not everyone plays FBB... but a lot of people (myself included) do. Or basketball, baseball, and so on.

Most of us play for some sort of stakes, as well. Generally money.

With that in mind, I heard a really fun question listening to the radio this week: Would you rather win your fantasy league or have your favorite team win a Super Bowl/Larry O/Stanley Cup/Baseball Trophy with Flags On It? More accurately, since nobody should ever put the "pride" of winning a fantasy title ahead of the excitement of a real championship for their team- that's just lame- what would be your price in a straight cash-for-banner swap?

(UPDATE: Some people seem to be concentrating on the fantasy sports aspect of the question, which isn't the point, just the entry into the topic. More simply put, how much is a title for your favorite team worth to you? That, for all intents and purposes, was the question being asked on the show, and it's the one I'm asking here.)

Henry Abbott over at the ol' ESPN True Hoop recently polled his fellow True Hoop scribes about the NBA squad they enjoy watching the most when their favorite team wasn't playing (in Abbott's case, the Portland Trail Blazers).  For most of the T.H. family, the Golden State Warriors took the prize, which isn't terribly surprising. 

As BK once described Nellie's bunch- with their "jacking up any and all shots/don't bother defending anybody because that drains energy better focused on jacking up any and all shots" style- they're the ultimate NBA Live team.  And if you're able to treat the Warriors with the same emotional attachment as one typically affords a video game squad, they fit a very specific bill.

For Abbott, the poor man's "Seven Seconds or Less" Phoenix Suns didn't quite cut it, so he chose the original.  I think I gotta agree with him. 

Last weekend, I strapped on the my Nike's (with extra cushy and supportive after market insoles added, just like the pros) for the big Lakers/710 ESPN 3-on-3 tournament down at Staples. Fair to say things didn't go well for team Purple Rain (two losses) or me (twisted ankle, zero votes in the tournament MVP voting). But as I waded through the sea of hoops humanity, filled with players who, like myself, weren't exactly horrible and clearly enjoy the game but who's love of playing is far outstripped by any ability to do it like an NBAer, I got to thinking:

If you could pick one skill you see in an NBA game- passing, ball handling, dead-eye shooting, jumping, shot blocking, rebounding, and so on- and do it like a pro, which would you choose? The rest of your game would still be yours, but in that one area, you'd rock. (Note: I don't know how many dudes (or dude-ettes) with genuine, upper-one-percent, get picked first at the rec but can't play because pickup games a violation of their current contract type skills frequent this site, but if you're one- and you're almost certainly not- feel free to click away, because the following likely doesn't apply to you.)

It's a tough question, at least for me.

Thursday night, the Philadelphia Eagles signed former Falcons QB Michael Vick. 

I am not among those who thinks Vick should be banned from the NFL for life, or wasn't punished. He did terrible things, but went to jail and paid fully the penalty assigned to him by our justice system. I'm not talking about probation or house arrest. Vick went to big boy jail, and stayed for a long time. Not long enough for some, but hardly a slap on the wrist. As a GM in the NFL, I wouldn't have done it, but don't object on a moral level that the Eagles came to a different conclusion.*

But as a fan, would you want him? If Michael Vick was a point guard instead of a quarterback, would you be accepting if the Lakers brought him to LA? What if you knew he could improve the team, helping provide depth behind Derek Fisher at a position of relative weakness for the champs?

The fun begins late tomorrow night, as the NBA's free agent free for all officially kicks off. 

Here's the list of guys who will or could be on the market.  LA's priority is bringing back Lamar Odom and Trevor Ariza.  Which leads to today's Question of the Day:

Is there anyone on the list linked above you'd choose instead of Ariza or Odom? 

The big names are guys like Jason Kidd, Rasheed Wallace, Ben Gordon, Chris Andersen, Ron Artest, Andre Miller, Shawn Marion, (presumably) Carlos Boozer, and Morris Almond.  Okay, maybe not him.  But I love the name.

(UPDATE, 6:13 pm: Yikes!  I realize I forgot Hedo Turkoglu, who is obviously an intriguing and talented player.  If this is a conversation to be had, he should be in it.  BK)

Don't worry too much about money-  think of the player.  Would you swap out X for TA, or Y for LO?  And so on?  Would you pick two from that list and let both Odom and Ariza walk?  What say you?   Personally, I'd keep last year's team intact.  I'm not a fan of how Kidd fits in, didn't want Artest last year either, and think Gordon's high volume shooting doesn't work with LA.  (Plus, and this is a fairly significant point, my understanding is the Lakers have a decent two guard already.)  Marion is an intriguing name, but only if he came with a time machine.  Last year's version in Miami/Toronto didn't play all that well but did manage to continue to cement his reputation as a malcontent.  Why bring that into a well-functioning locker room? 

But what say you?

BK

(Photo: Andrew Bernstein, Getty Images)

I've been anxiously awaiting a "no jinx" opportunity to ask a question that's piqued my curiosity of late.  And with the Lakers now officially in the NBA Finals, I have my chance.

Who would you rather face, the Orlando Magic or the Cleveland Cavaliers?

Let me say right from Jump Street that I don't believe a "right" answer exists.  There are legit pros and cons with either squad.  It's no longer an Eastern Conference where the crowned party wouldn't win 50 game in the West.  The Lakers won't be facing the 2009 version of the Kidd-Kenyon-Jefferson New Jersey Nets.  Both teams are very good, and will likely present challenges for the Lakers.  If you picked Orlando purely for the home court advantage (or to avoid a 2-3-2 structure that unfairly punishes the road squad), that's a valid enough reason in and of itself.  One of many, I'd say. 

I'm curious, though, how much varying opinions are fueled largely- if not completely- by the "Kobe-LeBron" thing. 

Saturday was not Kobe Bryant's first ride at the Iconic Game Rodeo.  He's turned in an array of incredible performances over the course of his career. (For a refresher course, click here.)

While 41 points on 12-24 from the floor is impressive, statistically 24's performance in Game 3 wasn't his most gaudy, nor one of those games where he bends the opposition to his will like Uri Geller with a spoon.  It was brutal and athletic and draining and clutch and vulnerable.  Nothing about it was easy, which, as I wrote after the game, is precisely why I thought it was so outstanding.  There was literally nothing left in the tank at the final buzzer, to the point Kobe needed an i.v. to replenish his body with fluids.  But he had led the Lakers to a critical win. 

So here's the question (if you haven't guessed already...):

Where does Saturday's Game 3 performance rank on your All Time Kobe List?

BK

After Game 6, I was IM-ing with John Krolik, a great young basketball writer for Slam and the ESPN.com TrueHoop Network (via Cavs The Blog), and it was the first time I heard the question.  Since then, it has been kicked around in various forms by various people, but he was the first to bring it up to me:

Is Sunday's Game 7 with the Rockets the biggest 48 minutes of Kobe's career?

I think so, at least as his legacy is concerned.  Should the Lakers lose, I have a feeling that the hit to Kobe's reputation will be large.  This, after all, is his team, one that whipped the rest of the Western Conference en route to 65 wins and has played with a championship-or-bust mantra since October.  Losing in the second round to a star-free Houston team would be a monumental embarrassment and while others would be damaged along with him, as LA's frontman Kobe's production and leadership would be under attack.

When U2 releases a bad album people blame Bono not Adam Clayton, even if the bass lines are crap.