Antawn Jamison Discussion: Cockroach

khmrP · by **khmrP** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:13 pm

if he does go to Cha, I'm ok with that at least its not Mia and it would be for his family and probably get more than what we or Mia can offer. We should shift focus to Ray, just to f* with Mia :man1:

DMK · by **DMK** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:32 pm

The guy is quality, and has been quality on some pretty terrible teams. Taking a lesser role on a better team, he could provide a significant punch in limited minutes.

The guy is a baller and quietly goes about his business. He will no longer be going to all star games, but if you only need a little bit from someone in a limited role, he could give you the goods on a consistent basis.

Low-risk. High-reward IMO.

Battle Tested20 · by **Battle Tested20** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:34 pm

trodgers wrote:I stand corrected on that point. I don't think money is a concern, to be honest. His quote is revealing.

Yep, reading those quotes I posted I would be shocked if he signs with LA now. Just like Nash wants to be really close to his kids.

Rooscooter · by **Rooscooter** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:45 pm

trodgers wrote:If the age is a problem, we can start to be prudent and develop our understudies.

Nash > Not sure if Morris is the guy here.
Kobe > Goudelock? DJO? Both have promise.
MWP > Ebanks (pace Rooscooter)
Gasol > McRoberts is young enough, but we could use a young big.

Bynum is himself young, so it doesn't matter if he can be a mentor.

I'll be good TRodgers..... I've made myself fairly clear about our SF position in other threads.... :man1:

I will say that the "back-up" at each of those positions would have a difficult time making almost any other serious playoff team..... sans Mc Roberts....

trodgers · by **trodgers** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:49 pm

^ Agreed. We need more pieces. I'm saying that there are some interesting prospects for development.

Rooscooter · by **Rooscooter** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:04 pm

trodgers wrote:^ Agreed. We need more pieces. I'm saying that there are some interesting prospects for development.

It seems that we aren't looking to develop via the draft.... at least not at the rate we trade picks for veterans.... So we are going to be relegated to Vet Min players or trading one of the front court players for our depth....

E'banks would be a decent back up to a top level SF IMO.... I just don't think he's going to be much more than a 12 to 15 minute a game solution at that position for us.... If we trade Pau or Bynum and get back a real SF then he can be the "change of pace" guy off the bench. I definitely don't see Ariza 2.0 in him like some do...

Goudelock showed some shooting ability as well as some ability to score.... The league adjusted and he had issues... He seems to be working hard to get better.... can't ask for more than that... He's having to make a huge adjustment from being "The Man" on a division 2 team to being a bit player on a NBA team..... learning to play without the ball....

Odom looks to be a decent college player on a real college team. He's played against top competition and excelled. He intrigues me more that Goudelock at this point because he seems to be physically more appropriate for his position. He has zip experience and to even "pencil" him in for anything at this point is premature.

Morris is a disaster IMO.... His game and physical tools don't seem appropriate for this level... not much more to say..

McRoberts was intimidated by the "stars" it seemed. When he played comfortably he moved the ball, hustled and moved without the ball to make teams pay for double teaming...... I think he will benefit from a guy like Nash more than any other player we have.....

revgen · by **revgen** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:55 pm

^Glock played on a division 1 team.

John3:16 · by **John3:16** on Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:00 pm

I'm not trying to be a "debbie downer", but Ebanks, Goudelock, Morris, Odom, and McRoberts are not ready to be solid contributors off the bench for a title contending team. They're just not. Of those, obviously Ebanks is the most ready and has the most upside (IMO), but not yet. We need Jamison / Hill (or both) and another solid, experienced vet looking for a title and willing to accept low $$ to get it.

lakersin4 · by **lakersin4** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:50 am

John3:16 wrote:I'm not trying to be a "debbie downer", but Ebanks, Goudelock, Morris, Odom, and McRoberts are not ready to be solid contributors off the bench for a title contending team. They're just not. Of those, obviously Ebanks is the most ready and has the most upside (IMO), but not yet. We need Jamison / Hill (or both) and another solid, experienced vet looking for a title and willing to accept low $$ to get it.

I'd like to hold on to Glock & Odom, but outside of them, everyone you named can go & be replaced by an upgrade for the minimum imo.. & you can add Blake to that list.. Jamison/Shard/G. Hill/Bayless/Nelson/Delonte/Hinrich just to name a few.. Then you have the upgrades that we know are available via trade, like Dorell Wright.. I hope if there is a Pau or Bynum trade, most or all of the guys mentioned are moved to make room to sign guys like I just listed.. Our core is as good as it gets, with those type of role players we could have a historic run..

Nash/Bayless/Glock
Kobe/Hinrich/Odom
Wright/G. Hill
Pau/Jamison/Shard
Bynum/J.Hill/Sacre

Assuming Bynum & pieces I didn't list go out for D12, the team has even more of a chance to be untouchable..

trodgers · by **trodgers** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 4:07 am

McRoberts didn't look good for us, but he has been a strong, consistent contributor prior to LA.

Doc Brown · by **Doc Brown** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:02 am

trodgers wrote:McRoberts didn't look good for us, but he has been a strong, consistent contributor prior to LA.

The Sacto game at the end of the year where everyone was resting and the bench played the whole game, I think McFly had a good game....

I know one game isn't anything special, but he played like a totally different person and did some things he never did with the regulars. He was attacking / boarding / passing / dribbling / shooting jumpers.

With him I think it's about being aggressive and playing his game and being aggressive. Too often last season he just deferred to the regulars and it really hampered his game. If we could get that aggressive McFly every game next season, where he expands his role to LO-lite, he can be a good player.

We just never saw that player last season, even though he has the skills to do it.

Stearnfxr · by **Stearnfxr** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:47 am

McRob is a tweener. Too weak and overpowered by many PF's/C's, and doesn't play defense without fouling. I think his best bet is to work on his Jumper and defense and play SF. He can handle the ball, he's a smart passer, good at garbage plays. He just needs to play under control on defense, take better angles and incorporate some positional basics. With his athleticism and strength he should be able to defend 1-3 along with the occasional 4-5.

eltoro · by **eltoro** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:49 am

We need shooters, athletic defenders, and a backup,PG.

432J · by **432J** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:49 am

John3:16 wrote:I'm not trying to be a "debbie downer", but Ebanks, Goudelock, Morris, Odom, and McRoberts are not ready to be solid contributors off the bench for a title contending team. They're just not. Of those, obviously Ebanks is the most ready and has the most upside (IMO), but not yet. We need Jamison / Hill (or both) and another solid, experienced vet looking for a title and willing to accept low $$ to get it.

adding jamison, hill, and delonte west would complete this team

XXIV · by **XXIV** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 9:08 am

eltoro wrote:We need shooters, athletic defenders, and a backup,PG.

While a stretch 4 isn't needed it would definitely improve our team overall. Especially if we were to obtain Dwight.

24K GOLD · by **24K GOLD** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 11:49 am

How is this going to make the Lakers better?

John3:16 · by **John3:16** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:02 pm

24K GOLD wrote:How is this going to make the Lakers better?

Someone on the bench that can score.

Texas Lakers Fan · by **Texas Lakers Fan** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:03 pm

John3:16 wrote:
24K GOLD wrote:How is this going to make the Lakers better?

Someone on the bench that can score.

trodgers · by **trodgers** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 2:58 pm

24K GOLD wrote:How is this going to make the Lakers better?

Actually, it's a huge lift for the team. Clearly Jamison can score, and he can score in a way that would probably make him a 3rd option on many clubs. But we would have the luxury of him off the bench. Wouldn't you feel better with him trying to score than Hill/McRoberts/Ebanks/Goudelock/Blake? Maybe Goudelock is close, but the rest really aren't.

He shoots the three very well for someone his size, has veteran savvy, and can't defend worse than Murphy.

432J · by **432J** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:39 pm

24K GOLD wrote:How is this going to make the Lakers better?

i can't believe some people here would actually be against bringing jamison to LA. the guy averaged almost 20 ppg last season, he'd be such a boost to that horrendous thing the lakers call a bench

Vito Andolini · by **Vito Andolini** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 5:41 pm

AWESOME pick up if it can be done cheap.

XXIV · by **XXIV** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:12 pm

Has there been any further updates, is CHA still the favorite to sign him?

V.V.V.V.V. · by **V.V.V.V.V.** on Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:29 am

Jamison is still a really good player. He can start on most teams, so he'll probably be too expensive for us.

Of course if he wants to win a title....

lotus · by **lotus** on Sun Jul 08, 2012 8:43 am

Though it would be nice for the Lakers, Jamison would have to be crazy to come here for cheap to win a ring when he still averages nice numbers. For that to happen, Jamison would have to lose his mind at the same time Mitch waves his magic wand. Let's see what happens...

Lakerjones · by **Lakerjones** on Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:22 am

Better than anyone we currently have on the bench. Do it Mitch!

Antawn Jamison Discussion: Cockroach

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Re: Antawn Jamison To The Lakers?

Who is online