From reader "Greenpaz,"

"AK/BK,

After watching Allen Iverson against Golden State last night, I got to thinking about some of the most famous -- or infamous -- questionable moves by star players that refs don't call. There is, of course, Iverson's use of his off arm to clear defenders when he drives to the basket. You also have Reggie Miller shuffling his feet into position behind the 3-point line. And Shaq's legendary bunny hop in the pea patch. Just for fun, can anybody think of other illegal moves/tricks consistently used by a particular player that rarely get (or got) called??"

Have at it, people.

AK

Finally, mercifully, the pretend game season has ended. Fortunately for the Lakers, it went off (more or less) with out a hitch.  A scare from Kobe and his knee- careful, Josh Powell!- but no real calamities.  Overall, I saw nothing in the preseason that made me change my opinion of the Lakers heading in, that they're the best team in the Western Conference.  Some very quick observations before the QOTD:

• I would have liked to see LO, Bynum, and Gasol on the floor together a little more.  Despite Odom's current sixth man status, I still think that threesome has potential, and if the Lakers want to get the most minutes from their best players, it'll have to be explored. That said, Bynum and Pau looked increasingly more comfortable as they piled up some minutes together.
• Kudos to Trevor Ariza and Jordan Farmar for a great preseason. Farmar in particular is showing a ton of confidence.  A little too much, occasionally, but I would expect that his more reckless tendencies will die down a little once the games actually count.
• A healthy Chris Mihm is going to make a huge impact on the quality of the rotation.
• Josh Powell won't provide the shotblocking or offense of Ronny Turiaf, but in terms of rebounding and interior toughness, the Lakers will be just fine in those minutes they'll need him to play.
• The ball movement, particularly among the bigs, is the biggest reason they'll be fun to watch. 

All of this, of course, leads to the Question of the Day: What were your major impressions from the preseason?  Think players, combinations, good things and bad. 

BK

Beyond the remarkably obvious (Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum), one of the commonly cited strengths of this year's Lakers squad is depth.  This is not only in terms of useful, usable rotation players -- on any given night, the Lakers will probably DNP-CD/deactivate guys who could play for many teams around the league -- but also in terms of how they can be used.  It's a Swiss Army roster. Gasol can rotate between the four and five, Bryant between the two and three, Lamar Odom nearly everywhere. Derek Fisher can slide over to the off guard spot, Vladimir Radmanovic and Luke Walton can play both forward positions, and so on and so forth.  When I asked Phil Jackson if he thought there was such a thing as too many options, he said no.  Basically, just because something can be done doesn't mean it will, and his feeling is players will eventually dictate rotations and configurations based on performance. 

Still, it's tinkering time, whether with Odom a lead guard, with different traps and defensive rotations, with the small forward spot, and more. That's what camp is for.  We've talked about all sorts of arrangements, but clearly not all of them. With that, I give you the Question of the Day:

What sort of rotation ideas do you have that might just be a little kooky?  Out of the box thinking that you've been batting around the gray matter?  Configurations and combinations you think could work, even if they defy conventional wisdom?   

It's time to play Rotation Jenga.  Put the pieces together in as many ways you can think of.  Let the ideas fly, with the understanding that we'll all agree to be nice, and not shred them too bad (ha ha).

BK

Many a Lakers fan has complained over the years about Lamar Odom's production not being commensurate with his pay, particularly his 2008-09 salary, which is consistently reported at 14.1 (use the Dr. Evil voice) meeeeeeeelion dollars.  According to the Daily News' Ramona Shelbourne, that number's has been commonly (and incorrectly) inflated, with the actually number coming in at $11.4 million.  Still not exactly a pittance, obviously, but we're nonetheless talking a contract nearly $3 million cheaper. 

Assuming that info is correct, I'm wondering if it makes the previously dissatisfied feel any better about Odom?  Is he more reasonable as an "$11-million player" (if "$11-million player" even means something, which I'm not sure it does)?  Is it easier to accept playing him off the bench or as a fourth option (some readers have chafed at that for a player of his contract in either role)?  Will your perception and expectations for Odom change with a new idea of his bank account?

 Well, after months of waiting, speculation, and wondering, Kobe Bryant has announced the date for his pinkie surgery: A week from "Not Happening."   

On his official website, Kobe provides the following explanation:

"I have always felt that I can still focus and play at a high level even through various injuries. Thatss (sic) really just part of the game. When the doctors told me recovery from a procedure could be 12 weeks, I just decided now was not the time to have surgery. What it really came down to for me is that I just didn't want to miss any time 'punching the clock' for the Lakers, given all we are trying to accomplish as a team this NBA season. I am just really excited and looking forward to being there with the guys when camp opens in a few weeks. That is a real bonding process and if I can avoid being on the sidelines for that, God willing, I will."

I must say, this particular turn of events threw me for a loop.  I can't say I'm wild about the decision.

The whole "Redeem Team" tag?  Pretty, as Bryant put it, "cheesy" (unlike the notion of patriotism, which Bryant finds anything but cheesy).  Look, I get it.  There's a mission to be fulfilled, a bronze in 2004 was humiliating, America wants to own basketball again, yada, yada, yada. But at the same time, like Bryant says, more than a little cheesy. Just curious if the general blogosphere agrees or disagrees with the Mamba/AK take.  If you concur, any thoughts on what would be a better nickname? 

Personally, I'm thinking the "It's Amazing What Can Happen When a Roster Is Assembled in Haste-Free/Marbury-Free Fashion, Actually Practices Together for More Than a Few Days Before the Games, and Coach K Doesn't Inexplicably Deny PT to Kobe the Way Larry Brown Did With LeBron, Wade and Melo Team."

But that may not roll off the average fan's/marketing guy's tongue. 

The Olympic basketball tournament is about to start (word is that Kobe guy is playing).  I'll admit, in terms of attention paid and depth of emotional investment, I've been pretty lax regarding both the hoops contest and the Games in general.  Now that things are rolling (I'm currently watching men's rowing), I'll probably pay closer attention ... but generally prefer watching sports I otherwise wouldn't see (men's rowing, for example).  I'd by lying if I said I was wrapped up in whether the U.S. wins a hardwood gold.  Not that I'm rooting against them, I've just become accustomed to the notion that it's an international game now, and the rest of the world is pretty good.  Add in the different rules (and often questionable whistles) of FIBA ball, and the days of an American team -- no matter who is on it -- being guaranteed victory are over.  That said, it should be some entertaining ball, worth watching.

Which brings me to the QOTD:  Very simple.  On a scale of 1-10, how much do you care about the "Redeem Team" and the Olympic basketball tourney?  Are you watching as a Kobe fan?  Hoops fan?  Should the U.S. not win gold, how will you react?

BK

There were mini-waves kicked up yesterday when it was reported Kobe Bryant said that, on the Importance-O-Meter, an Olympic gold medal trumps an NBA title.  Why? 

"You're playing for your country. You're not playing for a region, a state … you're playing for the United States of America and that has more importance."

Seems fair enough, but on the other hand, as a Laker sfan, does this bother you?  Listening to the sports talk on the radio last night, I heard AM 570's Joe McDonnell railing not on Kobe personally, but on this idea that a gold is a bigger deal.  I was given the impression he believes players have a larger obligation to the fans of the city for which they play, to the organization that pays them, and so on, and that an NBA title is a bigger deal.  I didn't listen long, nor particularly closely, but there were probably a few callers who agreed.  Of course, in some ways, your thoughts on this issue are linked to the Olympic question generally.  So with that, I ask today's Questions of the Day:

1) Do you care that Kobe said an Olympic gold was more important than an NBA title? 
2) Generally speaking, do you like to see the stars of your favorite teams play in the Olympics?  Especially a player like Kobe, who is risking injury, exhaustion (yes, even Kobe gets tired), and putting off surgery on his finger?  Don't forget, Pau Gasol is playing too. 

Some of y'all have been discussing Kurt's recent Forum Blue And Gold post about the notion of swapping Lamar Odom for Ron Artest, a plan of attack he's not particularly down to follow.  Kurt breaks down the stats that, in his opinion, make the Lakers better off sticking with Lamar Odom, but there's another angle that dawned on me after perusing his nitty-gritty.  Given that Ron Ron is, to put it kindly, something of a flake, and at his unpredictable worst is capable of, to put it kindly, wrapping up his team in a considerable amount of drama, it would behoove the Lakers to surround the small forward with as many positive influences as possible. 

Ironically, their #1 available asset might be Lamar Odom, who grew up with Artest and probably knows him better than anyone else with the franchise.  That background might help LO reach his old pal, or at the very least, keep him from going goony bird and messing up a rather unified locker room (with all due respect to the combined presences of Phil Jackson, Kobe Bryant and Derek Fisher, don't even pretend it can't happen).  Along those lines, it could make sense for the Lakers to go out of their way to keep Lamar in the mix, assuming such wishes are even possible.

  So I was listening to Mason and Ireland this afternoon on the radio machine, and John Irleand, who is an unapologetic Lakers booster, was talking about all the good-luck guests they might be able to book for Tuesday's show before Game 6.  Shamans, priests, rabbis, Kreskin, that guy who bends the spoons - anyone who might have some positive vibes to offer.  Obviously Lakers fans are feeling the same way - any rubbable rabbit's foot gets rubbed, any pluckable four leaf clover gets plucked.   Fans, like players, are superstitious animals, and many have their own particular way of bringing good luck to their squad of choice. The particular habits of our readers we've covered in the past.  But just for funsies, I want to present the following hypothetical:

Obviously the Lakers need to win two games in Boston to hoist the Larry O'Brien.  Let's say you have one crack at your good luck charm.  Tuesday or Thursday, but not both.  Use it on Tuesday, and the Lakers will be on their own in the close-out game.  Choose Thursday, and they may never get there ... but if they do, the power of your lucky charm virtually guarantees a title.  What do you do? 

Personally, I use it up in Game 6, and leave the boys to handle their own business on Thursday, but some of you might be gamblers by nature. 

BK

Very simple: Boston or Detroit?

BK

As you know, BK and I seek only good fortune for the Lakers, and for a variety of reasons.  A winning squad's locker room is considerably more pleasant.  When you spend enough time around the same players, especially guys that are pretty nice, it's only natural to wish them the best.  There's also a selfish motivation, in that the Lakers' success often fuels this blog's success.  But when it comes to rooting for the Lakers as a fan, that's strictly my territory.  I was a big-time Laker enthusiast for a good dozen or so years before receiving a check to cover them.  They're easily the team I care about most in sports.  BK certainly never rooted against them, but he readily admits purple and gold success never meant much to him one way or the other until professional reasons entered the mix.  He'd dig them winning a title, but I'd love it, which has made each postseason round an experience equal parts glee, anticipation, golden visions... and now nervousness.  Not because their next draw is San Antonio, although I certainly respect the hell out of the fellas I'm predicting the Lakers will beat in seven hard-fought games.  Instead, I'm concerned about off the court issues now presented. 

My girlfriend, whom I live with, is a Spurs fan.

Hey folks.  I'm afraid you're going to have to do your own link huntin' this morning, as I've got to haul down to Anaheim for the Dodgers game.  Of course, all the really important information from Friday night is contained in the score: 108-105 LAL, putting a cap on a 4-2 series win over the Jazz.  The Lakers may have let most of a 19-point lead slip away, but I will not abide by any "they didn't look good enough winning" talk.  Any road win in the playoffs is a good one, especially when the opposition had lost five games on its floor all year. 

Anyhoo, the big question this morning has more to do with the upcoming series than the one they finished.  As in, who are the Lakers going to play?  The fun will start Wednesday night against the winner of Monday's Game 7 between New Orleans and San Antonio.  Which begs the question (of the day)- and I know this discussion has already started- who do you want the Lakers to play in the next round? 

Tonight, we'll find out who the Lakers are going to play in the first round, kicking off (in all likelihood) Sunday afternoon at Staples.  If the Mavs win tonight against New Orleans, they'll draw the Hornets and the Lakers will get the Nuggets. If Dallas loses and Denver beats Memphis, LA will see the Mavs this weekend.  Which leads to today's Question of the Day (and an appropriate corollary).

Who represents the better matchup for the Lakers in Round One?  Is there one team you want to see more? 
    -(Corollary) If you were the Mavs, would you "tank" tonight's game?  Certainly if they wanted the Lakers instead of New Orleans, they could make that happen.  Should they?

If I had to lay odds, I'd say the Lakers are far more likely to be in a late battle for the two spot than the top seed in the Western Conference.  Obviously, nothing is set in stone right now- Lord knows the W.C. is capable of rapid change- but that's how I see it as of 1:05 Tuesday afternoon.  That means the Lakers would most likely see either Phoenix, Dallas, or Houston in the first round.  Which leads me to today's QOTD:

Who do you want to see in the first round.  I'm not talking about matchups, or what team against whom you think the Lakers have the best chance of advancing.  I mean want, on a primal, visceral level.  The matchup that gets you most excited, both as a Laker fan and a lover of hoop. 

Personally, I'd say the Suns... and if I have to explain why, well, you simply haven't been paying attention to the NBA over the last three seasons.  I figure most of you feel the same.  Am I wrong?

BK

As every Laker fan that hasn't been living under a rock is fully aware (and for the benefit of those stone dwellers, Chucky Atkins no longer starts at the point), Kobe Bryant is dealing with a torn ligament along his right pinkie.  The doctor involved recommended surgery, which would shelve Kobe around six weeks (about March 30th to the calender enthusiast crowd).  For now, Kobe has opted to hold off on any knives and play through the pain.  The front office, while supporting its star, seems to wish he'd go ahead with the operation.

I'm gonna have to come off like company man on this one.

News involving Didier Illunga-Mbenga includes more than him getting a spot with the Lakers for the season's remainder.  According to Phil Jackson, Mbenga's widely accepted nickname "DJ" has Dallas Mavericks stink caked all over it.  Hard to say for sure whether or not this is true, since The Zen Master lives to throw a dig Mark Cuban's way.  But given how we at Lakersblog have heartily amused ourselves turning monikers like "The Face" (Sasha), "Cat Stevens" ('06-'07 Vlad Rad), "The Critter" (Javaris Crittenton) and "The New Jack Bauer" (Kobe) into catch phrases sweeping the nation (or at least our respective apartments), it would take a shocking display of willpower on our collective part to pass up this opportunity.

We have no willpower.

Thus, I'm gonna throw a few contenders into the ring and see what y'all think.  If said offerings don't sound like your particular brand of vodka, by all means, suggest, suggest, suggest.  And without further adieu, my two cents.

To say that tonight's game eclipses the normal standard of excitement for a typical Nets/Lakers game would be an understatement. Not only have the Lakers pulled off a killer deal to bring Pau Gasol to L.A., for all practical purposes they've eliminated the "Is Jason Kidd soon to join L.A.?" storyline that would have been hanging over the game. As an organization, they can focus on a very encouraging present and future, without dwelling on a perceived lack of star wattage.  That's got to be a good thing.

So here's the Q: What are you looking for tonight?  Is there something in particular you'd love to see out of Gasol and the Lakers? 

Some cats over at ESPN talk a little "Mamba v. King."  Everything from skills to leadership to who's better on many a level.  Personally, I think Kobe is the better of the two (as I've said many times, I think he's the best all-around player in the league), but anybody who claims LeBron isn't closing the gap in quick and tangible fashion is either confusing him for Mike James or is seriously willing to fool themselves out of blind Laker loyalty.  It's a shame these two didn't hit their prime at the exact same time.  As much as James-Wade-Melo will provide plenty of entertainment for years to come, extra years with Kobe in the mix would only make it better.

Which brings me to a pair of questions.  During yesterday's podcast (which can be listened to by hitting the button on the right side of the blog), the topic of how much "Kobe vs. Lebron playing to 21" on Pay-Per-View would make.  After settling on a figure roughly around "a kajillion," BK and I debated how much we'd pay to watch it in person.  We were both willing to fork out 250 bucks, no problem.  We also threw around some undercard bouts, including:

Reggie Evans v. Desagna Diop (The "offensively challenged" bout)
Antoine Walker v. Von Wafer (The "only bad shots from behind the arc" bout)
Shaq v. Jerome James (The "two most out of shape centers in the NBA" bout, with James lasting five minutes or less before dropping out to throw up)

So here's the two part query.  How much would you pay to watch that Kobe v. LeBron showdown live?  And what other undercard suggestions do ya got, whether for high comedy (like the three above) or as a legit display of hoops skills?

-AK

(UPDATE: Andrew Bynum and Trevor Ariza are increasingly gaining the trust of Phil Jackson, who they could have been calling "Senator" or "Teach" instead of "Coach."  Kenny Smith thinks Jamaal Tinsley's brush with gunfire reinforces the need for athletes to make better, if not always fun, choices.  And finally, the O.C. Register's Kevin Ding looks at a boy whose last days were made considerably better by Kobe Bryant, apparently also an influence on Caron Butler and Nick Young).

We're at the quarter pole, more or less, and the Lakers are 12-8, second in the Pacific, seventh in the conference.  They've registered impressive wins over W.C. contenders Phoenix, Golden State, Utah, Denver, and Houston, plus Detroit, titan of the E.C.  They've had impressive (for the totally opposite reason) losses against Milwaukee and New Jersey, and have also taken it on the chin from the New Orleans and Bostons of the world.  Overall, the Lakers have played a schedule chock full of more opportunities to fail than my career through college math (yet caught a break or two by catching teams like Chicago while they're down).  The purple and gold have warmed our hearts and prompted donations to the Swear Jar... sometimes within the same quarter.  Injuries have played a role, as well.

But at a 60% victory clip (that's a 49 win pace), they're officially A Few Games Better Than I Thought They'd Be.  But screw what I think (at least until after the jump).  I'm just a guy who (if I remember correctly) predicted a measly 46 wins.  This is a website where, at least for some, 50 wins isn't enough.  Even the 55 Win Bandwagon doesn't satisfy those with the highest expectations.  Leading to today's Question(s) of the Day:

Just how good do you think this team is, and has their play thus far prompted you to revise predictions in either direction?

Ian Thomsen of SI.com posted an interesting article Thursday afternoon about Kobe, and whether or not he's really 29 in NBA years.  Does the fact he's played an incredible amount of minutes for someone of his relative youth mean that then end is closer for him than it might be for another player?  Is decline only a couple years away?  Obviously, Kobe doesn't think so.  And the good news is that even if he's wrong, Kobe has elevated his game to the point that, assuming no major injuries, it would take him a while to truly be "diminished."  It's not like he'll wake up at 33 and look like me during a pickup game. 

I was hoping to give this a little more copy, but we're running short of time (heading down to Irvine for more radio gaga), so I'll pose it as a patented Lakers Blog Question of the Day:

With a 112-69 thrashing of Venezuela in the books, Team USA has officially entered competitive battle.  Tonight, they square off against the Virgin Islands, all part of a quest to take home the 2008 gold and imitate a certain squad of the past.   The Battle for America tourney also marks Kobe Bryant's maiden voyage into Olympic hoops, and judging by his energy on both sides of the ball, dude's pretty geeked to be on board.  My question for y'all is, do you get geeked by the whole Olympic hoops thing?  And does Kobe's involvement automatically raise the "geeked" factor even more?

We asked a couple of days back for some suggestions for blog topics, having spent a fair amount of time on Kobe Bryant this summer.  One of my favorites was the suggestion for an all-time Lakers roster.  Not just a starting lineup, but a full 15-man squad (including three for the inactive list) that would go up, at least theoretically, against every other franchise's ultimate team.  Kind of a fun exercise.  It's not just about coming up with the 15 best Lakers, but the combination that you think would actually produce the best on-court product.  Fortunately, you'll have a lot of choices.  Unfortunately, you'll have a lot of choices (what do you do with all the great centers the franchise has seen?), though I'm certain this guy will make everyone's roster.  However you construct your 15, it should make for quality debate.

Me?  I'm trying to figure out how to squeeze Sedale Threatt onto my team.   

-- BK

UPDATE: Excellent point made by exhelodrvr:  "I assume that the selections should be made based on how someone performed with the Lakers, not over their entire career.  Based on that, Wilt should not be on the team, nor should McAdoo."  Argue about the specifics, but it seems like a pretty good rule to add to the selection process, though those of you with Karl Malone at PF may have to rethink it.

Because I didn't get a chance to watch any of the Summer League action on NBA TV, mostly due to conflicting Dodger games/blog work.  For that matter, I also didn't make the trip to Vegas to check out the action, although that was because I know myself too well.  And because I know myself too well, I'm perfectly aware I would have spent about five minutes at Thomas and Mack watching the starters, then hightailed it to the nearest poker room once the scrubs entered and written post-game reports based purely on box scores.  Call me crazy, but I imagine The Times wouldn't consider this a "constructive" use of their money.  Thus, I decided to stay in L.A. and keep my job.

 

A Friday evening game in the Vegas Summer League isn't exactly a grand, global stage upon which to make bold statements of revenge, but Von Wafer, former Laker and first-ballot member of the Lakers Blog Hall of Fame, he of the slight head tilt and unapologetically frequent shot, went off for 22 points in 19:53 in Denver's 120-88 pasting of L.A. (summer version) in Sin City.  True to form, Von took three more shots than any of his teammates, despite playing fewer minutes than every other starter and first-man-off-the-bench Bracey Wright.  That's why this space loves him.  A bunch of dudes, including Jordan Farmar and Javaris Crittendon, had 13 for the Lakers. 

In other news, Steve Blake is heading back to Portland for what looks like a short, relatively inexpensive deal.  Shorter and more inexpensive (by a lot) than I expected -- two years and an option, worth a max of $12 mil.  Assuming it was even possible (Blake has strong ties to the Portland area and the Blazers), would the Lakers have been better off bringing him in over Derek Fisher?  Substantially younger, probably a better defender, solid PG skills?  He doesn't have Fisher's gravitas, but at this point in their respective careers, is Blake a better player?  Or maybe you're a Jason Hart guy (2 years, $5 mil with Utah).  Or Chucky Atkins (2 years, $6.6 mil with Denver) ... OK, maybe not Chucky.  But are you someone who thinks the Lakers paid with their hearts instead of their heads? 

In only a few hours, David Stern will stride across the stage at MSG and kick off the 2007 NBA Draft.  Hopefully by then you'll have inserted the ear plugs necessary to avoid any Stephen A. Smith-induced loss of hearing and can settle in for the best draft in sports.  I know most fans hope the Lakers won't end up taking a player -- it would likely mean they've moved the 19th pick in a big-time trade -- but if they do, who do you want to see them select? 

So I was driving home this afternoon, and something occurred to me:

I don't think I've seen or heard the word "Clippers" in about a month.  No FA talk, no draft talk, nothing.  I think I saw a dude in a Clippers t-shirt at Jamba Juice, but that's about it.  It's as if Kobe has channeled his inner David Copperfield and made an entire franchise disappear. 

Am I the only person who has noticed this (that, by the way, is the QOTD)?

BK

Having taken time out from his Spanish vacation to reiterate his desire to be traded, you can argue this summer's Kobe Saga has gone to another level.  If Bryant still wants out, it changes the whole context in which the Lakers will operate before next season.  Not to say there won't be any trades, but deals made specifically to satisfy 24 are less likely to happen.  What's the point, if he's gone anyway?  And that's the good news.  Should the situation reach the point where there's no alternative but find Kobe a new home, the Lakers likely will have to maneuver in a position of incredible disadvantage.  Kobe has a no-trade clause, so he can not only dictate the city to which he's traded but also the personnel involved in the deal- if he feels his new team will be gutted by the trade to bring him there, he can nix it.  Plus, Kobe makes a ton of money, making him a major cap eater, so not every team will be willing to take him on from a salary standpoint (similar to the Shaq deal).  The only real leverage the Lakers have is to make him wait.

So on to the Question of the Day:

Ever since May 5th, I've been carefully watching developments around the NBA, scouring the web for late breaking headlines, word of a loophole unveiled, or some kind of newly uncovered rules infraction that turns the world of hoops upside down.  But now that every second round playoff series has either begun or is scheduled begin later tonight, I've resigned myself to the following conclusion:

The Lakers are indeed out of the playoffs, that's just not going to change and there you have it.

Now I don't know about every Lakersblog reader, but I always keep watching the playoffs, even after my Purple and Gold have been bounced.  It's not always the most entertaining of experiences (Spurs vs. Nets for the 2003 crown, anyone?), but I love me some roundball, so I'm gonna stick around.  But like anything with sports, it always helps to have a rooting interest.  Thus, here are the top 3 teams I'm now hoping capture the Larry O'Brien. 

Fair to say the Lakers have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune this season, at least from an injury standpoint.  Knock on wood, Kwame Brown's return has gone well thus far, but I've got a hunch L.O. and Luke Walton will be gone for a while.  And we all know the situation with Vlad Rad.  Mo Evans is playing on a squishy knee, Andrew Bynum nearly joined the Busted Ankle Brigade yesterday in Phoenix.  The roster is looking a wee bit thin.  At this point in every season, there's generally not much help available, and this year isn't much different.  But by now you've all heard the one name that keeps circulating around the Lakers:

Scottie Pippen. 

I know we've touched on this before in one form or another, but given chatter around the reception Kobe received in Boston- a Laker getting cheered in Beantown is like a mongoose being welcomed in a den of cobras- and this article we posted in Extra! today, it seems like a good time to revisit the question of rivalries.  Clearly Lakers-Celtics doesn't have the meaning it used to, but I've also felt the purple and gold rivalries with the Kings and Spurs mellow out over the last couple seasons.  Maybe it's just me.  But like the piece points out, player movement and a lack of "dynastic" teams on top long enough to clash, clash, and re-clash in important moments has undercut the time it takes to develop the animosity necessary to form those classic rivalries.  Or maybe the local rivalries have cooled because the Lakers are in the midst of emerging from a two year championship contention siesta, and will be rekindled as they make their way back to the top. 

Whatever it is, something feels different to me.  It's almost as if the Lakers are currently without a foil.  Do you agree?  With what teams do you feel that edge is still there?  Where has it gone away, and what teams do you anticipate being the next incarnation of Lakers vs. Celtics?

BK

You know, aside from Sasha Vujacic?

The Eastern and Western Conference All Star Teams have been announced, and one thing is clear: It's really freakin' hard to make an All Star Team in the NBA.  Given that fan voting can squeeze the numbers- I give you Eastern Conference starter Shaquille O'Neal, with his seven games played this year (even Yao is somewhat questionable, having missed almost 20 games, this despite having kicked the hell out of the league for the ones in which he played)- it can be even tougher.  That said, I'm a believer in fan voting, in all sports.  All star games are exhibitions.  Fans should be able to see who they want to see.   

At long last, after 24 games and about seven weeks, the Lakers are heading off on a real, live, legitimate road trip.  Six games over eleven days (twelve, if you count yesterday's travel day).  Not too extreme- only one back to back- but considering how things have become a lil' discombobulated without L.O., there are more than enough challenges to go around.  Start with the squads they'll face.  Tonight and tomorrow against Chicago and Minnesota, two teams that don't suck a) nearly as much (Bulls) or quite as much (Wolves) as they did in visits to Staples during November.  After that, it's four against the E.C.  The dank, cold, depressing E.C.  (I hope everyone got flu shots, because I hear those teams are contagious.)  Still, nothing comes easy on the road, and the Lakers will have to be better than they were this weekend against Houston and Washington to win games.  P.J. says success is a 3-3 trip, or better.  Will they get there?

In the words of the great Hammer, break it down:

Damn!

The lesson here?  Don't fight.  Like... ever.  Were I an NBA player, I'd have second thoughts about playing this video game or watching this movie.  I wouldn't even risk a spirited thumb wrestling match.  It's just not worth it, man!

I also wonder how the Knicks will handle that one game without the services of Mardy Collins and Jerome James.  Back to the ol' drawing board for Isaiah.

Just curious.  Does everyone think these suspensions were fair?  Too much?  Too little?  And why?

AK

Phil Jackson, ever the pessimist, says it could be a month or so.  Lamar Odom, ever the optimist, says it could be a couple of weeks.  Either way, because of L.O.'s sprained knee, the Lakers are going to have to win some games without him.  Now, you don't just replace the 17.5/8.7/4.9 he's been posting this season with a wave of the hand, but the good news is this injury, which could have relegated the Lakers to the lottery last year, can be weathered this season.  First of all, the Lakers have built up a nice little cushion by starting 15-6.  More importantly, they go deeper this season than a year ago.  It may be unrealistic to expect .714 ball without Odom and playing a road heavy schedule, but there's also no reason to throw in the towel, either.  Still, someone's going to have to pick up the slack, which leads to today's question:

Above everyone else, who has to step up in Lamar Odom's absence?