Antawn Jamison Discussion: Cockroach

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby Texas Lakers Fan on Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:04 pm

nthydro wrote:Jamison is definitely an improvement over the garbage we have on our bench but I'm concerned about how much he has left at 36. He came off his worst shooting season last year, although I think he'll get much better looks playing next to our starters. It's just that CL is notorious for hyping up role players only to have them stink it up.

Who's hyping him up? No one is expecting him to be an All Star just a solid sixth man.
Image
User avatar
Texas Lakers Fan

 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:26 am

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby revgen on Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:13 pm

I don't worry about him being 36. He's playing bench minutes now.
"Every time he’s hurt, he always plays, he always comes through."

- Metta World Peace on teammate Kobe Bryant
revgen
HDTV/Multimedia Guru
 
Posts: 21722
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:53 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby kblo247 on Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:27 pm

Mike wi find a way torun vets into the ground. He will get between 28-30 minutes
Image
User avatar
kblo247

 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:38 pm

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby GNC on Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:14 pm

I do not understand how some people cannot be excited for the addition of Jamison. Even at 36 or 37, he is going to be HUGE for our bench.
Image
User avatar
GNC

 
Posts: 16398
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: Next to Kate Upton

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby Doc Brown on Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:21 pm

GNC wrote:I do not understand how some people cannot be excited for the addition of Jamison. Even at 36 or 37, he is going to be HUGE for our bench.


Debbie Downers. They will complain about how we need upgrades and our bench is terrible, but when we do it's not good enough.

17 / 6 for the vet. min and people are complaining? 17 points a game and 6 boards for the absolute LEAST amount of money that we could offer.

That's gosh damn highway robbery right there.
Rule of Thumb at ClubLakers - Never encourage people to check your post history.
User avatar
Doc Brown

 
Posts: 19446
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:11 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby JGC on Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:49 pm

The added plus of Jamison is that he is a vet, and thus, isn't going to be complaining for playing time or using his on court time to audition for a bigger contract. He'll do anything it takes, to get that ring.
JGC

 
Posts: 3781
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:07 am

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby Congo Cash on Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:56 pm

He only cost 1 mil, what is the [Swearing is not permitted at Clublakers. You must edit this post prior to submitting.] problem? Hey, remember when we used to pay 5 mil on these veteran presence (ie. Divac, Mckie)...
- insert signature here -
User avatar
Congo Cash

 
Posts: 4532
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:58 am
Location: Philippines

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby trodgers on Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:23 am

Durability, scoring, veteran savvy, takes care of the ball...now we don't have to worry about putting Blake, Goudelock, Ebanks, McBob, and Hill on the court and wondering who will score.
twitter.com/lakersballtweet lakersball.com
User avatar
trodgers
Site Manager
 
Posts: 46636
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:31 pm
Location: Orlando

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby JGC on Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:37 am

I also think those who are throwing out age as a concern are overreacting most likely because their perspective on age is way out of whack for good reason. We're seeing Kobe almost overnight show signs of decline and he's only 33 so Jamison must be way too old at 36, right? But I think you can't just look at age. Look at career minutes (including playoffs).

Jamison: 37,281
Bryant: 51,018

Now, I realize Kobe is a physical... specimen that when it comes to durability probably shouldn't be compared to any other player but... Jamison hasn't even surpassed the dreaded 40,000 minute threshold yet mostly because of his lack of appearances in the playoffs. So he's got plenty of juice left in the tank.
JGC

 
Posts: 3781
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:07 am

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby 432J on Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:40 am

while the addition of jamison is HUGE in terms of improving the bench, there is still work to be done. trading for delonte west to backup nash and signing rush and possibly another shooter would just make this offseason the best one in recent memory
Image
User avatar
432J

 
Posts: 4784
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Sherbrooke, Quebec

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby GoldenKnight on Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:56 pm

We now have 2 players we didn't expect to see this season Steve Nash & Antawn Jamison, not to mention Jordan Hill coming back :jam2:

All we need now is a SG (backup)
Image

CHECK OUT MY DESIGNS ON FB/INSTAGRAM/TWITTER: @GoldenKnightGFX
User avatar
GoldenKnight

 
Posts: 2185
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:57 am

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby frankrj on Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:07 pm

36 is is the new 31 or 32 due to advanced fitness practice. But when u say 17 / 6 that was for 33 min a game in Cleveland as a PF, 6 reb and his lower FG % vs. a more athletic and better defender in Matt Barnes. You says Barnes was garbage in the playoffs. I think you forgot the 1 for 20-something streak Jamison had w' the King a a couple yrs back. He was also heralded as more scoring for LeBron. Nash is a good addition and so is resigning Hill. Hill showed can play in the playoffs and reg season. I prefer him over Jamison. $4 mil/yr vs $1Mil. Neither are a 3 pt shooter which raises questions.
frankrj

 
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:25 am

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby GoldenKnight on Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:49 pm

frankrj wrote:36 is is the new 31 or 32 due to advanced fitness practice. But when u say 17 / 6 that was for 33 min a game in Cleveland as a PF, 6 reb and his lower FG % vs. a more athletic and better defender in Matt Barnes. You says Barnes was garbage in the playoffs. I think you forgot the 1 for 20-something streak Jamison had w' the King a a couple yrs back. He was also heralded as more scoring for LeBron. Nash is a good addition and so is resigning Hill. Hill showed can play in the playoffs and reg season. I prefer him over Jamison. $4 mil/yr vs $1Mil. Neither are a 3 pt shooter which raises questions.


Who are you trying to convince?

Matt Barnes has been hot garbage in the playoffs for the past 2 years and can't score an open 3 or a layup to save his life. Give me Jamison who can put the ball in the hoop and can rebound, he wil be especially better with Nash dishing the ball to him.
Image

CHECK OUT MY DESIGNS ON FB/INSTAGRAM/TWITTER: @GoldenKnightGFX
User avatar
GoldenKnight

 
Posts: 2185
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:57 am

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby khmrP on Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:03 pm

frankrj wrote:. I think you forgot the 1 for 20-something streak Jamison had w' the King a a couple yrs back.


Jamison NEVER played for the Kings :man3:
User avatar
khmrP

 
Posts: 10461
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 10:45 pm

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby therealdeal on Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:05 pm

I had posted an extensive response to your previous assertions about Jamison that you have yet to respond to, but I will try again.

frankrj wrote:36 is is the new 31 or 32 due to advanced fitness practice. But when u say 17 / 6 that was for 33 min a game in Cleveland as a PF, 6 reb and his lower FG % vs. a more athletic and better defender in Matt Barnes.


Yes, 17/6 was in Cleveland with more minutes per game, but we're not expecting him to play 33 minutes a game. We rational Laker fans are expecting him to give us a boost off the bench, not carry us. If he plays 23 minutes a night for our team, it'll be more than anything we were able to have during the entirety of last season from a backup big man. The lowest amount of minutes he's ever spent on the floor was 22 minutes in his rookie season where he struggled the most (understandably) and his 6th man of the year season which he spent with (wait for it) Steve Nash at the helm.

During that season he averaged his best FG% ever by far (53%) and his best 3PT% every by far (40%). The overwhelming evidence provided by our resident player analyst rydjorker121 points to him being effective as a catch and shoot player.
Another reason he might fit in with the Lakers is that all of his jumpers are virtually off the catch--almost all his threes are assisted (of note is that he had three straight seasons where all his threes were assisted) as well as all his mid-range J's. Among big men, even though it's rare to see him do so (see below), he's among the better ones in cutting off the ball to finish around the basket. Nash will be able to find him in his spots quite easily, because he's one of the best at getting to them.

Read more here: lakers-discussion/laker-scouting-reports-t115206-100.html

He is not being brought here to average 17/6 but more likely to average something like 12/4/1.5 on 48% shooting and 38% from deep which is absolutely within reason. Now is that 17/6? No, but it's the scoring punch that our bench didn't have last season behind McRoberts' lack of playing time and lack of production.

Again, I'm not sure why you're so hung up on the Matt Barnes comparison since Barnes is a SF and Jamison is a PF, but you're hung up on the athleticism and the defense. If that's what your'e worried about from the SF position, Ebanks ranks very near to Matt in terms of athletic ability jumping and sprinting. He's not as good of a finisher and lacks Barnes' strength and lateral speed, but is much younger and able to develop those traits. Barnes' athleticism is extremely overrated as he's just an average athlete in the NBA. Jamison is not the greatest athlete, but certainly the better basketball player and scorer.

frankrj wrote:You says Barnes was garbage in the playoffs.

Yes I do.

frankrj wrote:I think you forgot the 1 for 20-something streak Jamison had w' the King a a couple yrs back.


I think you're overrating a streak. Kobe Bryant goes through shooting streaks every season, should you hold him to the same standard? Kobe can go for 40 points a night 4 games in a row and then shoot 30 something percent from the field the next 2 games. Kobe went 9/31 against Washington and then two games later went 3/20 against Utah. Streaks are unimportant because they tend to balance out.

In Jamison's stint with "the King" he averaged 15.3/7.4/1.3 in 34 minutes of play.

frankrj wrote:He was also heralded as more scoring for LeBron


He was.
frankrj wrote:Nash is a good addition and so is resigning Hill.

Yes they are. Although if you stick by your rationale for disliking Jamison so much, then I am unsure why you're excited about Nash; he's neither athletic or particularly known for his defense.

frankrj wrote: Hill showed can play in the playoffs and reg season.

Hill has a sample size of 7 games with the Lakers in the regular season and 12 games in the post season with a total of 299 minutes played with the Lakers. That's not even close to enough to show he can do anything consistently with any team. Jamison has built a career.

frankrj wrote: I prefer him over Jamison.

We have both, so I'm not sure what the point is of preferring one over the other. I prefer Ebanks over Eyenga, but it doesn't matter because last season we had both. Hooray!

frankrj wrote:$4 mil/yr vs $1Mil


Jordan is the one getting paid 4 million a year and Jamison is getting paid closer to 1.5-2 so I'm not sure what this post means. In the production that Jamison will give you he is worth FAR more than the production Hill will give you for 4 million.

frankrj wrote:Neither are a 3 pt shooter which raises questions.

Jordan Hill isn't a 3 point shooter, Jamison is. He's averaged 35% over his career and 34% in the playoffs so I'm not sure how you can say he's not a 3 point shooter.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40322
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby Texas Lakers Fan on Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:39 pm

frankrj wrote:36 is is the new 31 or 32 due to advanced fitness practice. But when u say 17 / 6 that was for 33 min a game in Cleveland as a PF, 6 reb and his lower FG % vs. a more athletic and better defender in Matt Barnes. You says Barnes was garbage in the playoffs. I think you forgot the 1 for 20-something streak Jamison had w' the King a a couple yrs back. He was also heralded as more scoring for LeBron. Nash is a good addition and so is resigning Hill. Hill showed can play in the playoffs and reg season. I prefer him over Jamison. $4 mil/yr vs $1Mil. Neither are a 3 pt shooter which raises questions.

Image
Image
User avatar
Texas Lakers Fan

 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:26 am

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby JLaker17 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 10:06 pm

To add a guy with the scoring ability of Jamison, who just came off of a 17/6 season for the vet min, who also is a great locker room guy is an amazing move no matter what way you look at it.
Image
User avatar
JLaker17

 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby XXIV on Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:05 pm

Does anyone know when he's expected to return from his trip?
XXIV

 
Posts: 6386
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:20 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby Finwë on Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:18 pm

XXIV wrote:Does anyone know when he's expected to return from his trip?

I read something like "towards the end of the week". By that account he should be back by now.
"The first time I ever saw my uniform hanging in the locker I put it on right away, and it just felt like I was putting on golden armour. From that day forward, I just called it 'the golden armour', it just felt like there was something mystical and magical about it" - Kobe Bryant.
User avatar
Finwë

 
Posts: 8078
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby GinoDB on Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:47 pm

17/6 at 30 minutes,half of that which is 8.5/3 for 15 minutes (or make it 23 which was our highest for a backup) makes him better than any of our bench guys last tear
User avatar
GinoDB

 
Posts: 7916
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:54 pm
Location: GO LAKERS !

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby hdtvset on Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:37 am

A true Lakers fan will complaint about signing any of these players for 1 year vet minimum contract:

LeBron James - he only won one ring in his career
Dwight Howard - no post move under the basket
Kevin Durant - too skinny will get push around
Steve Nash - too old and doesn't play defense
Image
User avatar
hdtvset

 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: LA

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby kenzo on Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:47 am

hdtvset wrote:A true Lakers fan will complaint about signing any of these players for 1 year vet minimum contract:

LeBron James - he only won one ring in his career
Dwight Howard - no post move under the basket
Kevin Durant - too skinny will get push around
Steve Nash - too old and doesn't play defense

QFT :man10:
User avatar
kenzo

 
Posts: 5970
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:06 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby lakersStan24 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:28 am

Seems a Good Deal for Us
Please Subscribe to My YouTube Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/LakersMix/videos?view=0
User avatar
lakersStan24

 
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 4:26 pm

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby LAKEROC on Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:38 am

^ Be greatful! He signed with us for the minimum. Nobody should say a single word or complaint on this signing.
LAKEROC

 
Posts: 2187
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:49 pm

Re: Lakers agree w/ Antawn Jamison to 1 year minimum contract

Postby Texas Lakers Fan on Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:48 am

It's almost baffeling this is a guy who should command around 5 million or so and he signed with us for the vets minimum. Talk about a steal.
Image
User avatar
Texas Lakers Fan

 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:26 am

PreviousNext

Return to NBA Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron
Advertise Here | Privacy Policy | ©2008 Sculu Sports. Come Strong.