Antawn Jamison Discussion: Cockroach

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.

I don't worry about him being 36. He's playing bench minutes now.

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

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.

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.

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.

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)...

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.

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.

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

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

All we need now is a SG (backup)

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Seems a Good Deal for Us

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

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.