|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ValisJason
Star Player
Joined: 13 Dec 2002
Posts: 1418
Location: Los Angeles
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the Bulls see Odom as one of their top targets for the PF that can put them over the top next season. KG, JO, Odom ... probably in that order. Veterans that can score at the 4 (in the east) and rebound.
I think the Bulls know that Tyson at the 5 does not work too well for them.
The Bulls do not want to give up Ben Gordon in the deal to obtain Odom because they are convinced they can either get more for him than as a package for Odom, or they want his offense off the bench. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
orwell
Star Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2001
Posts: 8203
Location: 90210
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Save Lamar Odom! 
_________________
A proud member of LakersGround.net for over 10 years [since April 28, 2001] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSailor
Sixth Man
Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This article is horrible. First of all you can't assume the Lakers weren't high on Green before they made the promise to Bynum. You can't go back on draft promises and so they had to let Green slide on by. Green looked spectacular in the time he had towards the end of the season, throwing down 10X the spectacular dunks that Bynum did. Thirdly, the whole tone is wrong, acting like the whole Green thing was a smokescreen, like Mitch planned it all. What an absolute joke. Mitch is nowhere near that savvy. Green was a top pick by nearly every scout and expert out there, he's just they dropper and steal of that draft.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakermission08
Starting Rotation
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 218
Location: Redding, CA or Hell as i like to call it!
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Notice the title of the article is "Blowing Smoke" This isnt true |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerJam
Franchise Player
Joined: 02 Aug 2002
Posts: 18411
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | For Chandler? No. |
I'd actually be very happy with Tyson Chandler. He'd be our Dennis Rodman with better shot-blocking and much better length. Down the road, we'd have 2 mobile giants up front in Bynum/Chandler.
I'm sure we'd all love LBJ instead, but if he signs with Cleveland, I'd be thrilled with Tyson as an addition, even if I don't like his contract. Rebounding, shot-blocking, weakside defense - on that side of the court, he'd be perfect fit with Kwame right now. Ideally, Kwame is working on his offensive game, which should make him more aggressive as he'll feel better prepared and better acclimated to what we run.
That said, I don't really expect that trade to go down at all. The reality is that by the time most of these rumors get out there, the deal is already dead. Sure, it can be revisited, but I don't expect that to happen and I'm fine with it not happening.
Last edited by LakerJam on Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ERod86
Star Player
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 4550
Location: So. CAL
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chandler is better, and has played mostly, at 4. Obviously his rebounding and shot blocking would good, but he doesn't fit great with Phil or Kwame. He gets his points on put backs mostly. Walton, Kwame, and Chandler up front. Is 25 to 35 points a night enough from your front court?
I would be surprised to see Roy start. Where would the MLE go?
For Banks? The Lakers would still be very inexperienced in the back court and Kobe has to score 35 a night again.
Chandler and Roy are the kinds of player I would love to have on the Lakers, but without another deal and a good MLE signing, they aren't better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerJam
Franchise Player
Joined: 02 Aug 2002
Posts: 18411
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bystander wrote: | | It's difficult to take seriously article of an author who doesn't know difference between "consultation" and "consolation" |
I don't think a lack of an editor is indication of a person's intelligence. Have you never worked in an office? Typos and mistakes do happen and it doesn't mean the author has no clue, only that he's human. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bystander
Starting Rotation
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 752
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What is this with Chandler that people want him here?
Is it 7 points career average, no double digits in any category or injuries that make him so attractive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AV
Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 606
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| One thing about this draft is that it is pretty interesting, most of the time it's pretty clear how things are going to shake out at least at the top, not this year, so being an odd year maybe this is the time the LAKERS actually do something significant on draft night.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
re4ee
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 12237
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerJam wrote: | | Bystander wrote: | | It's difficult to take seriously article of an author who doesn't know difference between "consultation" and "consolation" |
I don't think a lack of an editor is indication of a person's intelligence. Have you never worked in an office? Typos and mistakes do happen and it doesn't mean the author has no clue, only that he's human. |
What happened to that little thing called "proof-reading"? When I took journalism classes in HS, a mistake like that would cost you TWO letter grades! It's one thing for adolescents on a message board to let typos pass, but when you are writing something with the intent of projecting competence in what you are writing, "typo" is no excuse. Take a few minutes to READ what you WROTE, before posting it.... GEEZE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32768
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bystander wrote: | What is this with Chandler that people want him here?
Is it 7 points career average, no double digits in any category or injuries that make him so attractive? |
Chandler would stagnate the offense. If your C was Yao Ming, then sure... otherwise I have no idea why this writer would think the Lakers would seroiusly entertain that trade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Game James
Star Player
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 4007
Location: The official trout slapper of LG.net
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bystander wrote: | What is this with Chandler that people want him here?
Is it 7 points career average, no double digits in any category or injuries that make him so attractive? |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
re4ee
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 12237
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bystander wrote: | What is this with Chandler that people want him here?
Is it 7 points career average, no double digits in any category or injuries that make him so attractive? |
Yeah, folks, THIS is the question I want answered as well. I don't get the Chandler-love around here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THE_SHOES
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 29556
Location: Taiwan
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Serious NBA Fan wrote: | | Smokesceen? for what purpose? to stay out at the inconsequential 26th pick? Now thats' a joke!! Last year, Kupchuk told us he will take a high school player. He did, didn't he? If we had a wheeler dealer GM, the idea of smokescreen would make SOME sense. But it doesn't when all you plan to do is fold.... :roll: |
Also, this quote is another reason to know that this writer is bored, and is doing nothing more than trying to be creative in the closing minutes before the draft...
| Quote: | | Green, hardly made a peep in his rookie season for the Boston Celtics, falling all the way to the 18th and jumped back and forth between the NBDL and the NBA. |
Which is what exactly will happen to Roy... The hype is clowining everybody, but I'm betting it's not the Lakers.
In lieu of what has suddenly become a draft day tradition. I really do wonder what is up Mitch's sleeves...
_________________
"According to ESPN.com's conference projections, the Lakers will finish 12th in the West, which prompted Bryant to tweet earlier this offseason, "12th I see.." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerJam wrote: | | Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | For Chandler? No. |
I'd actually be very happy with Tyson Chandler. He'd be our Dennis Rodman with better shot-blocking and much better length. Down the road, we'd have 2 mobile giants up front in Bynum/Chandler.
I'm sure we'd all love LBJ instead, but if he signs with Cleveland, I'd be thrilled with Tyson as an addition, even if I don't like his contract. Rebounding, shot-blocking, weakside defense - on that side of the court, he'd be perfect fit with Kwame right now. Ideally, Kwame is working on his offensive game, which should make him more aggressive as he'll feel better prepared and better acclimated to what we run.
That said, I don't really expect that trade to go down at all. The reality is that by the time most of these rumors get out there, the deal is already dead. Sure, it can be revisited, but I don't expect that to happen and I'm fine with it not happening. |
idk, I guess it would depend on the moves afterwards, but I don't like Chandler's foul trouble and lack of offense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerJam
Franchise Player
Joined: 02 Aug 2002
Posts: 18411
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AV wrote: | | Chandler can play the 4 that is where he was on the bulls when they had Curry he actually played pretty well there, you could move kobe to sf and roy to sg with banks at pg, not sure what chandlers contract is i think pretty high so not sure if the lakers would do it although it doesn't seem that bad...of course the Bulls? I doubt they trade their main "big" for LO....the rumor of LO for either both their picks, both picks and BG, or number to 2 and BG and all those variants seems to make more sense for the bulls and the lakers.....but i am sure as this article pointed out whatever is getting out there about the lakers is probably a bunch of BS, just like last year....which means the lakers are scheming which is fine by me |
Yep.
PG: Banks/Parker/Vujacic
SG: Roy/Profit/Green/Wafer
SF: Bryant/Walton
PF: Chandler/Turiaf/Cook
C: Brown/Mihm/Bynum
That right there is one nasty defensive starting ine-up with quickness and speed all over the place. The bench is also made better because the additions push some of the others to the pine where they belong. Also, most of those players can play mutliple positions, which gives us other looks to throw at opponents (and in case of foul trouble). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ValisJason
Star Player
Joined: 13 Dec 2002
Posts: 1418
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I said earlier, if the Lakers are entertaining this trade its because they can get two athletic starters for Odom. They think Roy can start and contribute immediately. Possible ROY candidate. They might think that Tyson and Kwame would be a fearsome defensive combination, young and athletic. Im sure they don't like Tyson's contract or his health problems. But I bet Phil thinks he can get some nice garbage offense out of Tyson once he teaches him the triangle offensive rebounding philosophy.
Such a move frees them up to use the MLE or a Mihm package to obtain a starting 3, which should be easier. It also might mean that the Lakers dont trade Mihm because they see him as a valuable bench player who can bring offense in the post off the bench. By getting two starters for Odom, the Lakers have much more flexibility in terms of athletes as assets.
Again, all of that being said, I doubt the Lakers trade Odom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerJam
Franchise Player
Joined: 02 Aug 2002
Posts: 18411
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | LakerJam wrote: | | Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | For Chandler? No. |
I'd actually be very happy with Tyson Chandler. He'd be our Dennis Rodman with better shot-blocking and much better length. Down the road, we'd have 2 mobile giants up front in Bynum/Chandler.
I'm sure we'd all love LBJ instead, but if he signs with Cleveland, I'd be thrilled with Tyson as an addition, even if I don't like his contract. Rebounding, shot-blocking, weakside defense - on that side of the court, he'd be perfect fit with Kwame right now. Ideally, Kwame is working on his offensive game, which should make him more aggressive as he'll feel better prepared and better acclimated to what we run.
That said, I don't really expect that trade to go down at all. The reality is that by the time most of these rumors get out there, the deal is already dead. Sure, it can be revisited, but I don't expect that to happen and I'm fine with it not happening. |
idk, I guess it would depend on the moves afterwards, but I don't like Chandler's foul trouble and lack of offense |
Just remember how awful Rodman's offense was, or how terrible Ben Wallace's offense is. Yet wasn't/isn't their defense, rebounding and shot-blocking key to championships? Yes, it was.
The beauty of that deal, which I don't expect to happen at all anyway, is that (a) we get to keep Bynum and (b) once he develops, he'll be the post offense - as we've all seen that scoring is something he clearly looks to do, as well. The thought of a Bynum/Chandler frontcourt is niiiiice to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RCOinCR
Starting Rotation
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 250
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I would make the trade in a heartbeat! We get shot blocking and defense from Chandler and our PG for the next 10 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerJam
Franchise Player
Joined: 02 Aug 2002
Posts: 18411
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| buphead wrote: | | AV wrote: | | Chandler can play the 4 that is where he was on the bulls when they had Curry he actually played pretty well there, you could move kobe to sf and roy to sg with banks at pg, not sure what chandlers contract is i think pretty high so not sure if the lakers would do it although it doesn't seem that bad...of course the Bulls? I doubt they trade their main "big" for LO....the rumor of LO for either both their picks, both picks and BG, or number to 2 and BG and all those variants seems to make more sense for the bulls and the lakers.....but i am sure as this article pointed out whatever is getting out there about the lakers is probably a bunch of BS, just like last year....which means the lakers are scheming which is fine by me |
That would easily be a top 5 starting lineup defensively. Lacks a little offense though. Banks won't do much offensively. I'd prefer to keep Kobe at SG, Roy at PG, and trade Mihm and Cook for a 12-15ppg starting SF, which isn't a stretch of the imagination by any means. |
You do know that Kobe predominantly played SF this year and it was his most lethal.
I'd keep Bryant at SF and let him continue to kill people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daniel80111
Starting Rotation
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 281
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerJam wrote: | | buphead wrote: | | AV wrote: | | Chandler can play the 4 that is where he was on the bulls when they had Curry he actually played pretty well there, you could move kobe to sf and roy to sg with banks at pg, not sure what chandlers contract is i think pretty high so not sure if the lakers would do it although it doesn't seem that bad...of course the Bulls? I doubt they trade their main "big" for LO....the rumor of LO for either both their picks, both picks and BG, or number to 2 and BG and all those variants seems to make more sense for the bulls and the lakers.....but i am sure as this article pointed out whatever is getting out there about the lakers is probably a bunch of BS, just like last year....which means the lakers are scheming which is fine by me |
That would easily be a top 5 starting lineup defensively. Lacks a little offense though. Banks won't do much offensively. I'd prefer to keep Kobe at SG, Roy at PG, and trade Mihm and Cook for a 12-15ppg starting SF, which isn't a stretch of the imagination by any means. |
You do know that Kobe predominantly played SF this year and it was his most lethal.
I'd keep Bryant at SF and let him continue to kill people. |
is there any way you can post stats of when Kobe started at SF this year? Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ValisJason
Star Player
Joined: 13 Dec 2002
Posts: 1418
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Come on Shoes, you cant compare Roy to Gerald Green. You're not letting your affection for Odom (alot of which I share) cloud your judgment of Roy are you? Roy will be a ROY candidate if he is in the right situation. He will be a solid starter for his NBA career, ala Byron Scott or Eddie Jones. A valuable player next to Kobe.
All of that being said (again), I think the author of this article has it all wrong. Last year Green was definitely a smoke screen to prevent people from perceiving that Bynum was the true Lakers target. This year, if the analogy holds, Roy would be the smokescreen for the true Lakers target at #2 .... whoever that may be: Aldridge? Thomas? Gay? God I hope its not Morrison. The difference being that if the Lakers are picking at #2, they dont really need a smokescreen for Roy. He will be there if they want him. And, while I think that is a few spots too high for Roy, I would not mind at all if Roy is on this team next year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THE_SHOES
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 29556
Location: Taiwan
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| re4ee wrote: | | Bystander wrote: | What is this with Chandler that people want him here?
Is it 7 points career average, no double digits in any category or injuries that make him so attractive? |
Yeah, folks, THIS is the question I want answered as well. I don't get the Chandler-love around here. |
It has little to do with Chandler...
It's the Lamar hate which really is bizzare.
You could put just about any name you want in a deal, our brethren would cheer it as loud as can be heard from Los Angeles to beautiful downtown Bakersfield...
Laker fans would trade basketball player, no matter who for Lamar Odom...
They would be singinging a different tune if they seen how many giant leaps backward our guys took in the first month of the season. as maybe one of the "trade em up folks" would be heard saying well, we wouldn't have been doing any better with Odom, in an attempt to save face.
Chandler, and kwame, a rookie who Smush will have on the bench for God knows how long as soon as it is obvious that he isn't ready for primetime which won't be long, while the only two guys who are the most efficient at the tri would be Luke,and Kobe...
Whoa... Talk about a loooooooonnnngggg season....
_________________
"According to ESPN.com's conference projections, the Lakers will finish 12th in the West, which prompted Bryant to tweet earlier this offseason, "12th I see.." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RMurphy_22
Star Player
Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 4193
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerJam wrote: | | Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | LakerJam wrote: | | Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | For Chandler? No. |
I'd actually be very happy with Tyson Chandler. He'd be our Dennis Rodman with better shot-blocking and much better length. Down the road, we'd have 2 mobile giants up front in Bynum/Chandler.
I'm sure we'd all love LBJ instead, but if he signs with Cleveland, I'd be thrilled with Tyson as an addition, even if I don't like his contract. Rebounding, shot-blocking, weakside defense - on that side of the court, he'd be perfect fit with Kwame right now. Ideally, Kwame is working on his offensive game, which should make him more aggressive as he'll feel better prepared and better acclimated to what we run.
That said, I don't really expect that trade to go down at all. The reality is that by the time most of these rumors get out there, the deal is already dead. Sure, it can be revisited, but I don't expect that to happen and I'm fine with it not happening. |
idk, I guess it would depend on the moves afterwards, but I don't like Chandler's foul trouble and lack of offense |
Just remember how awful Rodman's offense was, or how terrible Ben Wallace's offense is. Yet wasn't/isn't their defense, rebounding and shot-blocking key to championships? Yes, it was.
The beauty of that deal, which I don't expect to happen at all anyway, is that (a) we get to keep Bynum and (b) once he develops, he'll be the post offense - as we've all seen that scoring is something he clearly looks to do, as well. The thought of a Bynum/Chandler frontcourt is niiiiice to me. |
Excellent point, and agree 100%. A trade could slow us down for a season, but the reward towards the future is greater.
Go Lakers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mttbk
Starting Rotation
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 623
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So "at times" we could have a line-up of:
Banks
Sasha
Walton
Chanler
Brown
Would we ever score with this line-up?
You know Phil would try it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
