*Official* 2007-2008 LA Lakers "the year we missed out on KG" thread - Page 5

Taraz · #41 11-09-2007, 08:22 PM

[ 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.

BobboFitos · #42 11-10-2007, 12:29 AM

[ 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.

IrishHand · #43 11-11-2007, 11:13 AM

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.

Taraz · #44 11-12-2007, 09:33 PM

[ 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.

IrishHand · #45 11-12-2007, 10:42 PM

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).

Taraz · #46 11-13-2007, 12:22 AM

[ 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.

yellowdoyle · #47 11-13-2007, 02:36 AM

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!!!

Semtex · #48 11-13-2007, 03:19 AM

[ 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.

BobboFitos · #49 11-13-2007, 03:43 AM

[ 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.

yellowdoyle · #50 11-13-2007, 04:12 AM

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?