Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Walton definitely is key to this team.]

[/ QUOTE ]

man, you LA people do too many drugs

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you realize what happens when he is not in the game. What you get is 4 statues who can't shoot, pass, or dribble and Kobe. It's awful to watch. Fisher makes things a little better because he understands the offense, but nobody can create a shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

walton cant create a shot either, sorry

[/ QUOTE ]

He creates shots for his teammates all the time. What are you talking about? Drawing the defense and kicking it out or to a diving cutter is creating a shot. He is pretty bad at creating good shots for himself though.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]


walton cant create a shot either, sorry



He creates shots for his teammates all the time. What are you talking about? Drawing the defense and kicking it out or to a diving cutter is creating a shot. He is pretty bad at creating good shots for himself though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ahh, my mistake. Because I took create a shot to mean = create a shot for yourself. (whcih he cant do off the dribble) passing wise, yes, he is good at that.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

Walton is a glue/character guy...but he's not that big a deal. His $5-6M a year deal is pretty generous relative to his contributions imo.

Kobe, Odom and Bynum are the only Lakers who really matter at this point.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
Walton is a glue/character guy...but he's not that big a deal. His $5-6M a year deal is pretty generous relative to his contributions imo.

Kobe, Odom and Bynum are the only Lakers who really matter at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think $4-5M a year is pretty reasonable considering the salaries of other players in the NBA.

I think a major issue in my mind is that you need these glue guys on your team. You can't dismiss them and focus on players who "matter". It is necessary to have players who embrace their supporting role and do their job well. Everybody always concentrates on superstars and players with potential, but you need the guys who just show up, play hard, and don't make dumb mistakes. This is also why I love Ronny Turiaf.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

Agree 100%...having players who know their role and bust their a$$ every night is critical...but the reality is that those guys don't warrant big salaries nor do they have much trade value.

San Antonio pays three guys big money, then the rest get peanuts (relatively speaking) - and they have a bunch of quality role players (and have for the past half-dozen years, really).

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
Agree 100%...having players who know their role and bust their a$$ every night is critical...but the reality is that those guys don't warrant big salaries nor do they have much trade value.

San Antonio pays three guys big money, then the rest get peanuts (relatively speaking) - and they have a bunch of quality role players (and have for the past half-dozen years, really).

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't really compare what the Spurs and a couple other teams are able to do financially with teams that are farther from title contention. Many high quality players are willing to take pay cuts to play for the Spurs and Suns because they seem so close to winning a championship. Do you really think that Grant Hill would have signed with the Lakers for the $2M that Phoenix offered?

You have to look at other players around the league who were signed for $4-5 million:

Kendrick Perkins, Damon Jones, Donyell Marshall, Eduardo Najera, Rafer Alston, Desmond Mason, Tony Battie, etc. I think Walton is about as good for the Lakers as the rest of these players would be.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

Any thoughts on the Lakers chances on this Texas back to back?

At the Lakers "peak" last year, about 12 games over .500, they beat the Spurs on the road (on a nationally televised game - I remember, I was on vacation but still was able to watch).

I think the Lakers can beat Houston, but unfortunately that is the second half of the back to back. I give the Lakes about a 33% chance to win one of the two games, maybe 15% to sweep em. Tell me how foolish I am, or just write something damnit. This is the lakers, don't people care? Aren't we the damn yankees? THE YANKS HAVEN'T WON [censored] LATELY EITHER!!!

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the Lakers can beat Houston, but unfortunately that is the second half of the back to back. I give the Lakes about a 33% chance to win one of the two games, maybe 15% to sweep em. Tell me how foolish I am, or just write something damnit.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're probably right. I think they are slightly worse than 50/50 to beat the Rockets in Houston. They lost by 2 at home, but I remember they missed like 20 free throws and there was other dumb crap like that. I don't know what their chances of beating San Antonio are, 20% maybe? Its mostly on the rest of the team. Kobe put up 45 that one game and they still lost against the Rockets. When the supporting cast shoots well the Lakers can run with anybody.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the Lakers can beat Houston, but unfortunately that is the second half of the back to back. I give the Lakes about a 33% chance to win one of the two games, maybe 15% to sweep em. Tell me how foolish I am, or just write something damnit.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're probably right. I think they are slightly worse than 50/50 to beat the Rockets in Houston. They lost by 2 at home, but I remember they missed like 20 free throws and there was other dumb crap like that. I don't know what their chances of beating San Antonio are, 20% maybe? Its mostly on the rest of the team. Kobe put up 45 that one game and they still lost against the Rockets. When the supporting cast shoots well the Lakers can run with anybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys are crazy. did you even WATCH the game? It was a blowout until Kobe went insane to make it close with like 2 mins left.

50/50 to beat the rockets IN houston??? WTF! I think the prediction of 33% going 50-50 to be alot more accurate. 15% to sweep? That is not accurate either, technically it's like 11% sweep, 33% win 1, 66% lose both. Prolly more accurate.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

Eh, I know it's a large percentage difference, but 11% or 15% meh pretty close guesstimates.

I saw the Lakers were ranked #4 on MSN power rankings last week. Is the NBA really that weak?

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
Eh, I know it's a large percentage difference, but 11% or 15% meh pretty close guesstimates.

I saw the Lakers were ranked #4 on MSN power rankings last week. Is the NBA really that weak?

[/ QUOTE ]

celts spurs suns rockets thats four lol i think msn power rankings are what is weak.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eh, I know it's a large percentage difference, but 11% or 15% meh pretty close guesstimates.

I saw the Lakers were ranked #4 on MSN power rankings last week. Is the NBA really that weak?

[/ QUOTE ]

celts spurs suns rockets thats four lol i think msn power rankings are what is weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

this dude has the bulls ranked second to last. how do these people get jobs?

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
50/50 to beat the rockets IN houston??? WTF!

[/ QUOTE ]
yeah that was probably too high, especially for playing at Houston. However, I will say I don't think the Rockets are that much better than the Lakers at this point. This is dependent though mainly on the shooting consistency of the guys not named Kobe or Derek. We'll have a better idea after some more games how consistent this team can be. Look for them to finish right where Houston does. I think both these teams are better than the Jazz and the Nugs.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

The Lakers look surprisingly good and hopefully Lamar Odom will just add to that. I would guess they have about a 25% chance of beating SA with all the rest they have. I think people are forgetting that Houston will be on it's second night of a back-to-back as well, but they'll probably have more rest as they are playing the Grizzlies. Probably about the same chance to win. I'm sure they would be ecstatic to get out of Texas with a 1-1 split.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
50/50 to beat the rockets IN houston??? WTF!

[/ QUOTE ]
yeah that was probably too high, especially for playing at Houston. However, I will say I don't think the Rockets are that much better than the Lakers at this point. This is dependent though mainly on the shooting consistency of the guys not named Kobe or Derek. We'll have a better idea after some more games how consistent this team can be. Look for them to finish right where Houston does. I think both these teams are better than the Jazz and the Nugs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe better than the Nugs but definitely not better than the Jazz or the Rockets. Y'all are deluded.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
50/50 to beat the rockets IN houston??? WTF!

[/ QUOTE ]
yeah that was probably too high, especially for playing at Houston. However, I will say I don't think the Rockets are that much better than the Lakers at this point. This is dependent though mainly on the shooting consistency of the guys not named Kobe or Derek. We'll have a better idea after some more games how consistent this team can be. Look for them to finish right where Houston does. I think both these teams are better than the Jazz and the Nugs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe better than the Nugs but definitely not better than the Jazz or the Rockets. Y'all are deluded.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the Lakers have taken the last 3/4 against Utah going back to last season but I could be wrong about that.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
50/50 to beat the rockets IN houston??? WTF!

[/ QUOTE ]
yeah that was probably too high, especially for playing at Houston. However, I will say I don't think the Rockets are that much better than the Lakers at this point. This is dependent though mainly on the shooting consistency of the guys not named Kobe or Derek. We'll have a better idea after some more games how consistent this team can be. Look for them to finish right where Houston does. I think both these teams are better than the Jazz and the Nugs.

[/ QUOTE ]

prop bet?

fwiw, the only team that MIGHT be 50/50 in houston right now would be san antonio, and even then i doubt it. houston is a top tier team, and top tier teams are never underdogs on their home court.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

The Lakers are nowhere near Houston and LMAO @ better than Jazz and Nuggets. Please, bet for any amount of money.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

Given odds I'd bet on LA > Denver. I think they're pretty close.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

The Lakers will be lucky to get anything higher than a 7th seed. It's really doubtful.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
The NBA has spoken with the Los Angeles Lakers about a comment coach Phil Jackson made following Tuesday night's game in San Antonio. The Spurs made 13 three-pointers in their 107-92 victory, and Jackson was asked if too much penetration was leading to open outside shooters. "We call this a Brokeback Mountain game, because there's so much penetration and kickouts," Jackson said. "It was one of those games." USA Today

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahaha Phil.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

oh man i searched for this thread to write that quote.

he said it with a complete straight face too. HILARIOUS

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The NBA has spoken with the Los Angeles Lakers about a comment coach Phil Jackson made following Tuesday night's game in San Antonio. The Spurs made 13 three-pointers in their 107-92 victory, and Jackson was asked if too much penetration was leading to open outside shooters. "We call this a Brokeback Mountain game, because there's so much penetration and kickouts," Jackson said. "It was one of those games." USA Today

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahaha Phil.

[/ QUOTE ]

phil jackson is a jackass but gotta [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] quotes like that

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

LA wins in Houston. Shweet. For the general fan and NBA's sake, I hope Tmac is fine.

Given that I gave the Lakers a 33% chance to split on this back to back, I am happy they won 50% of the games. Lol.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Lakers are nowhere near Houston and LMAO @ better than Jazz and Nuggets. Please, bet for any amount of money.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll bet you $50 that Lakers finish with more wins than Denver, if you give me a Kobe no trade clause, as in if he's traded at any point this season the bet is off.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

OK. Injuries count for both teams. Done deal. I'm a man of my word. ^^

Never thought I'd ever bet against my own team, but man, homers is crazy.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

What're the odds Kobe scores 20 this game?

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

Sick game.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

Odom is sick. Farmar is doing much better so far this year. And Bynum is chugging along, getting better and better slowly.

No Ronny for tonights game either, so very nice win for the Lakers.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
Odom is sick. Farmar is doing much better so far this year. And Bynum is chugging along, getting better and better slowly.

No Ronny for tonights game either, so very nice win for the Lakers.

[/ QUOTE ]
like all the supporting cast, lakers don't need a lot scoring from farmar. they have the scoring department taken care of. they just need all the other guys to take care of the hustle plays, and shoot a decent percentage, no matter how few shots they take. so far it looks like they are doing this in spades.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

Another solid win for the Lakers.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

Yes, good hustle and good effort.

Walton still seems to be struggling since becoming a 6th man.

I hope Kwame is not too hurt, just Bynum and Mihm is not too comforting, mainly because I don't know how well Mihm will hold up to his first full season in a couple of years. Not to mention Ronny being out...but things are going alright right now.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, good hustle and good effort.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think as long as the hustle and effort keeps up they'll be in good shape. And I found the Kwame injury to be pretty conforting [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]. Now there is no way Jackson can start him.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, good hustle and good effort.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think as long as the hustle and effort keeps up they'll be in good shape. And I found the Kwame injury to be pretty conforting [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]. Now there is no way Jackson can start him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I don't want to see the guy hurt, but less Kwame is better for the Lakers IMO.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

The more Bynum plays now, the better he'll play later. He can be very, very good - averaging 10/10 right now off the bench. I had forecasted 14/10 w/ 1.5bpg...looks like he's on track. In a year, maybe even Kobe will be saying "thank God we didn't trade Bynum for Kidd".

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
The more Bynum plays now, the better he'll play later. He can be very, very good - averaging 10/10 right now off the bench. I had forecasted 14/10 w/ 1.5bpg...looks like he's on track. In a year, maybe even Kobe will be saying "thank God we didn't trade Bynum for Kidd".

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, I don't think Bynum will ever be dominant really. He's just so inconsistent. He could make me eat my words in a few years, but I would've traded him for Kidd in a heartbeat. Kobe, Kidd, and Odom!?!? I don't want to say they would be contenders necessarily, but they would be much better on paper than they are now.

Of course, things are looking pretty good right now, so let's just see where we end up.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

He's 20 years old...inconsistency is a product of immaturity and inexperience.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The more Bynum plays now, the better he'll play later. He can be very, very good - averaging 10/10 right now off the bench. I had forecasted 14/10 w/ 1.5bpg...looks like he's on track. In a year, maybe even Kobe will be saying "thank God we didn't trade Bynum for Kidd".

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, I don't think Bynum will ever be dominant really. He's just so inconsistent. He could make me eat my words in a few years, but I would've traded him for Kidd in a heartbeat. Kobe, Kidd, and Odom!?!? I don't want to say they would be contenders necessarily, but they would be much better on paper than they are now.

Of course, things are looking pretty good right now, so let's just see where we end up.

[/ QUOTE ]

bynum looks top five center legit to me. in a year or two, i mean. physically he reminds me of shaq at that age, but with better muscle tone/slightly less massive frame.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
He's 20 years old...inconsistency is a product of immaturity and inexperience.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many 20 year olds has that been said about though? All I'm saying is that I'm not sold. I hope he turns out to be a beast, but I'm skeptical.

Re: *Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers \"the year we missed out on KG\" thre
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's 20 years old...inconsistency is a product of immaturity and inexperience.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many 20 year olds has that been said about though? All I'm saying is that I'm not sold. I hope he turns out to be a beast, but I'm skeptical.

[/ QUOTE ]

10, 10, and 1.2 in 24 mpg is beyond impressive. I also have been impressed with what I've seen of his one-on-one defense.

His hands, frame, and agility, at his height/weight is something you cannot teach. Everything points to Bynum being an all-star.