Boozer Discussion: Kupchak - going to have a great year (10)

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby abeer3 on Fri Jul 18, 2014 7:53 am

in reality, I know my backlash on the recent signings has really been that they're not Lance Stephenson. in other words, the lakers aren't really showing a plan here, and if they are, they're showing a bad one.

they need to understand that Dwight howard was an exception, not the new rule. it's going to be incredibly difficult to lure star players here without a roster. as it stands, they're going to miss the playoffs (by a mile, I might add), have no pick, and try to sell a FA market that might not even be very impressive on playing with a 37 year old kobe and Julius randle. the max guys won't go for it; not when they can get more money and play for a better team by staying put. so you'll be overpaying sub-max guys or just rinsing and repeating with these one-year deals.

mark Cuban thought this would work, but has wisely shifted gears. signing monta ellis last year was great for them, and they still had enough flexibility to be players in FA. the lakers could have done that with Stephenson this year (or maybe someone else), but they chose to go the one-year route. thus, all signings are subject to the same scrutiny from me: if it's a one-year deal for a player whose rights you won't retain or who clearly isn't in the long term plan, it's a bad deal. especially when it's not going to help you make the playoffs.

all that said, given their other moves, the boozer pickup makes sense.
abeer3

 
Posts: 10407
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:15 pm

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby therealdeal on Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:15 am

abeer3 wrote:in reality, I know my backlash on the recent signings has really been that they're not Lance Stephenson. in other words, the lakers aren't really showing a plan here, and if they are, they're showing a bad one.

they need to understand that Dwight howard was an exception, not the new rule. it's going to be incredibly difficult to lure star players here without a roster. as it stands, they're going to miss the playoffs (by a mile, I might add), have no pick, and try to sell a FA market that might not even be very impressive on playing with a 37 year old kobe and Julius randle. the max guys won't go for it; not when they can get more money and play for a better team by staying put. so you'll be overpaying sub-max guys or just rinsing and repeating with these one-year deals.

mark Cuban thought this would work, but has wisely shifted gears. signing monta ellis last year was great for them, and they still had enough flexibility to be players in FA. the lakers could have done that with Stephenson this year (or maybe someone else), but they chose to go the one-year route. thus, all signings are subject to the same scrutiny from me: if it's a one-year deal for a player whose rights you won't retain or who clearly isn't in the long term plan, it's a bad deal. especially when it's not going to help you make the playoffs.

all that said, given their other moves, the boozer pickup makes sense.

See there's just some things here I plain don't agree with.

They don't have a plan? I think their plan is very obvious and I'm sure you guys see it too. We don't have our own draft picks anymore so we go after former high picks and give them chances to succeed. They were drafted that highly for a reason: they have talent. We give them a platform to showcase that talent.

If they're good we try to bring them back on reasonable deals. Nick Young. Jordan Hill (the first contract). Will some of these guys take an over-payment over returning (Meeks, Clark), sure but that's alright. There's more former lottery picks to be had. In the meantime we have an opportunity to stockpile young players even WITHOUT our picks.

The plan moving forward should be to secure some of these other young guys along with Randle, Young, and Kobe and I think they'll do that. If/when we strike out on free agents we gave Young a 4 year deal and I expect we'll do the same with other players who impress us similarly. Lin, maybe Hill, maybe Davis, maybe Henry. I expect at least one of these guys to come back next summer after we miss on Rondo, Gasol, and maybe Love.

I don't see us as waiting for the next big free agent only either. I see us waiting for the Laker Killer CBA to expire so we can use our advantages a little more than we can right now. In the meantime though, I posted somewhere else, it's hard to find that next star who a) wants LA, b) is willing to take the pressure, the lights, and the stress of being the next Kobe Bryant and c) is available right now. Chris Webber talked about how in the 90s nobody was comfortable taking that mantle until Shaq. When will we get another shot at a guy like Shaq? I don't know.

We do have a plan though. The plan is to keep at least one spot available for a guy if there IS a Shaq out there while still trying to stockpile young assets. We do have a 2015 1st round pick now. We have a 2016 first round pick. We have a LOT of players under 26 on our roster. I think we're doing alright in a rebuild considering our limitations.

This signing is important too because we needed a veteran presence on the floor with Kobe who can help mentor our young guys and develop them. Maybe we never attract a star free agent if we don't have a foundation, well Julius Randle is our foundation now. If Kobe and Boozer and to a lesser extent Nash can teach him how to be a professional, we might be on to something here.

Got to stay positive. I won't read into the media spin that we have no plan.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40357
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby abeer3 on Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:42 am

therealdeal wrote:They don't have a plan? I think their plan is very obvious and I'm sure you guys see it too. We don't have our own draft picks anymore so we go after former high picks and give them chances to succeed. They were drafted that highly for a reason: they have talent. We give them a platform to showcase that talent.

If they're good we try to bring them back on reasonable deals. Nick Young. Jordan Hill (the first contract). Will some of these guys take an over-payment over returning (Meeks, Clark), sure but that's alright. There's more former lottery picks to be had. In the meantime we have an opportunity to stockpile young players even WITHOUT our picks.


draft picks are valuable mostly because of their contract structure. getting them once those rules don't apply makes them much less valuable. and even though they have hill's bird rights now, it doesn't matter, as the cap hold is going to be crazy high.

if ed davis blows up, he's going to be overpaid, either by the lakers or someone else. why bother? one year deals are to fill out rosters of playoff teams, imo.

I don't see us as waiting for the next big free agent only either. I see us waiting for the Laker Killer CBA to expire so we can use our advantages a little more than we can right now. In the meantime though, I posted somewhere else, it's hard to find that next star who a) wants LA, b) is willing to take the pressure, the lights, and the stress of being the next Kobe Bryant and c) is available right now. Chris Webber talked about how in the 90s nobody was comfortable taking that mantle until Shaq. When will we get another shot at a guy like Shaq? I don't know.

We do have a plan though. The plan is to keep at least one spot available for a guy if there IS a Shaq out there while still trying to stockpile young assets. We do have a 2015 1st round pick now. We have a 2016 first round pick. We have a LOT of players under 26 on our roster. I think we're doing alright in a rebuild considering our limitations.


that's a long wait. my point is that they're really not acquiring quality pieces. young's a bench player on a good team, as is hill. you need some young starters locked in, so that a) you can trade them for big impact players or b) you can use the remaining space to lure big impact players.

and having players who were washouts by age 26 is different than having coveted players under 26. also, Stephenson and Isaiah Thomas are under 26, right? could have had two young guys who excelled in starting roles for the money spent on hill, boozer, and davis. I actually like the young signing. he's worth that money, and they committed to him as part of the team going forward.

This signing is important too because we needed a veteran presence on the floor with Kobe who can help mentor our young guys and develop them. Maybe we never attract a star free agent if we don't have a foundation, well Julius Randle is our foundation now. If Kobe and Boozer and to a lesser extent Nash can teach him how to be a professional, we might be on to something here.


is boozer known as a great mentor? not that he couldn't be, I've just never heard that he's a super locker room guy or that he has vast wisdom to impart.

now randle has the potential to count as a foundation piece. there's a good chance that he will be productive beyond his contract for at least a couple years.

Got to stay positive. I won't read into the media spin that we have no plan.


I actually try to be positive most of the time; I just can't right now. I don't think this is a case of the media kicking the lakers when they're down (which happens frequently). I think they have a point. like I said, it's either no plan or a bad plan that I'm seeing.
abeer3

 
Posts: 10407
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:15 pm

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby lukewaltonsdad on Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:50 am

LOS ANGELES — What do parents do if they've spoiled their children for many, many years and then realize that their kids are woefully unready for the harsh realities of normal, rugged life?

That's essentially the question the Lakers must now answer, and one I posed to general manager Mitch Kupchak on Sunday in Las Vegas at the NBA's annual summer league gathering.

To be precise, I asked, "For Lakers fans who are impatient and want to see something big happen, is there anything you can tell them besides, 'Hey, next year there will be another free agency and we'll keep going for it—and then one after that'?"

"We're not giving up on this summer and this year, that's for sure," Kupchak replied. "There still are possibilities. But we're just going to keep working at it and look for opportunities to remain competitive, contending and flexible."

Both the question and the answer speak to the vague limbo in which the team exists right now.

The Lakers missed the playoffs for just the third time in the past 38 years—with 10 NBA championships in that time and six other NBA Finals appearances in that period. Lakers fans don't know what to make of this world in which they have been asked to accept mediocrity. They don't know that rebuilding usually takes time and a little unforeseen good fortune.

They are spoiled rotten.

Again, it's only a byproduct of the parenting. Over the years, the Lakers have given their fans every reason to grow comfortable with a certain standard of living.

But with happy days gone and not on the horizon, fans are already frustrated.

Los Angeles' acquisition of Carlos Boozer on Thursday prompted the latest toy-throwing tantrum by fans of wanting to win now-now-now!

In Boozer, the Lakers got a solid NBA player for a below-average salary—a bid of $3.25 million, per ESPN.com's Marc Stein—in an honest attempt to win more next season.

Yet the move was greeted with a chorus of criticism in some quarters of Lakers fandom, claiming that anyone another club is paying not to play for it is just embarrassing. It's beneath the royal Lakers to add another team's castoffs, as it was unseemly to let the Houston Rockets use them as a Jeremy Lin salary-dumping ground—even if the move netted the guaranteed profit of a free first-round pick.

The Lakers shouldn't be taking other teams' overpaid rejects or helping other teams set up their title runs! We're the Lakers!

And Boozer even rhymes with "loser"!

True enough, Boozer doesn't play a winning style, but what's really at work here is that his resume looks underwhelming when you are used to having trustworthy leaders with unique, magic touches—Jerry Buss, Phil Jackson, Kobe Bryant…and you're really, really missing them.

Take the emotion out of it, and it's not that big of a deal.

Boozer gives the Lakers the kind a proven big-man scoring option that they don't have among the group of Jordan Hill, Julius Randle, Ed Davis, Robert Sacre and probably Ryan Kelly. Boozer's defensive shortcomings could also be muted if he plays next to a shot-blocker in Hill or Davis at all times.

What doesn't make sense for a rebuilding team is to give playing time to Boozer, 33 in November, ahead of guys who might work toward their ceilings and help the Lakers in the future. But there is also a credible argument to be made that adding Boozer is part of a broad-minded approach to ease the demands on Randle, who will be 20 in November, as a rookie.

Boozer will be making a little more than $3 million, the same as Chris Kaman got last season with the Lakers in a hot-and-mostly-cold season in the big-man rotation. And his contract expires at season's end, meaning he fits the team's key guideline of preserving salary-cap space to chase that big-time free agent a year from now.

That brings us back to the question posed to Kupchak about what exactly is the Lakers' future—and the truth that it's even harder for fans to deal with the present when there is relatively little growth for the future going on.

Non-Lakers fans are used to seeing various clubs go through full-out youth movements or investing in strong players who could evolve into stars. That hasn't been part of the Lakers' culture, and the lack of any substantial youth movement last season only fed fans' bratty attitudes, with so many feeling no appreciation for competing for the sake of competing.

Can we just get to the draft and free agency?

But is even that enough?

Fast-forward to Monday night in Las Vegas, and there was second-round pick Jordan Clarkson tipping in a Randle miss at the overtime buzzer to beat the Golden State Warriors. Though it was in an utterly meaningless summer league game, the display of competitiveness was weirdly inspiring.

Still, the team's present feels awkward with the knowledge that perhaps no marquee free agent is actually coming this summer.

But what should the Lakers have done instead? Surrender that future cap space with a four-year deal to Gordon Hayward at $63 million? Kyle Lowry at $48 million? Trevor Ariza, Channing Frye or Avery Bradley at $32 million each?

If you believe Eric Bledsoe is on the cusp of stardom, he also might've been attainable as a restricted free agent from the Phoenix Suns—though at the extreme cost of that future cap space earmarked for Kevin Love or Marc Gasol. Perhaps the only true miss was on the mercurial Lance Stephenson, who signed with the Charlotte Hornets for only two guaranteed years, something the Lakers could have afforded.

Carmelo Anthony's temporary interest skewed the summer storyline and raised hopes. But for as fun as that courtship was, it remains fundamentally questionable whether the Lakers are better off without Anthony. He would've been guaranteed $25.5 million at age 33, when he'll only be able to guard guys with bodies like, well, Carlos Boozer.

Since the Melo flirtation subsided, every summer day has just been another reality check.

And if the Lakers use their remaining $2.7 million salary-cap exception to bring in someone such as the oft-troubled Michael Beasley, 25, or offense-illiterate Al-Farouq Aminu, 23, that player will also get sneered at for not being a real rebuilding difference-maker.

The absolute uncertainty as to when some faceless free-agent superstar will choose the Lakers is what makes the suffering that much worse for their fans.

It doesn't even feel like rebuilding. It feels like waiting.

Because it pretty much is.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2133 ... ing-league
lukewaltonsdad

 
Posts: 804
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:14 am

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby Savory Griddles on Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:01 am

abeer3 wrote:
therealdeal wrote:They don't have a plan? I think their plan is very obvious and I'm sure you guys see it too. We don't have our own draft picks anymore so we go after former high picks and give them chances to succeed. They were drafted that highly for a reason: they have talent. We give them a platform to showcase that talent.

If they're good we try to bring them back on reasonable deals. Nick Young. Jordan Hill (the first contract). Will some of these guys take an over-payment over returning (Meeks, Clark), sure but that's alright. There's more former lottery picks to be had. In the meantime we have an opportunity to stockpile young players even WITHOUT our picks.


draft picks are valuable mostly because of their contract structure. getting them once those rules don't apply makes them much less valuable. and even though they have hill's bird rights now, it doesn't matter, as the cap hold is going to be crazy high.

if ed davis blows up, he's going to be overpaid, either by the lakers or someone else. why bother? one year deals are to fill out rosters of playoff teams, imo.

I don't see us as waiting for the next big free agent only either. I see us waiting for the Laker Killer CBA to expire so we can use our advantages a little more than we can right now. In the meantime though, I posted somewhere else, it's hard to find that next star who a) wants LA, b) is willing to take the pressure, the lights, and the stress of being the next Kobe Bryant and c) is available right now. Chris Webber talked about how in the 90s nobody was comfortable taking that mantle until Shaq. When will we get another shot at a guy like Shaq? I don't know.

We do have a plan though. The plan is to keep at least one spot available for a guy if there IS a Shaq out there while still trying to stockpile young assets. We do have a 2015 1st round pick now. We have a 2016 first round pick. We have a LOT of players under 26 on our roster. I think we're doing alright in a rebuild considering our limitations.


that's a long wait. my point is that they're really not acquiring quality pieces. young's a bench player on a good team, as is hill. you need some young starters locked in, so that a) you can trade them for big impact players or b) you can use the remaining space to lure big impact players.

and having players who were washouts by age 26 is different than having coveted players under 26. also, Stephenson and Isaiah Thomas are under 26, right? could have had two young guys who excelled in starting roles for the money spent on hill, boozer, and davis. I actually like the young signing. he's worth that money, and they committed to him as part of the team going forward.

This signing is important too because we needed a veteran presence on the floor with Kobe who can help mentor our young guys and develop them. Maybe we never attract a star free agent if we don't have a foundation, well Julius Randle is our foundation now. If Kobe and Boozer and to a lesser extent Nash can teach him how to be a professional, we might be on to something here.


is boozer known as a great mentor? not that he couldn't be, I've just never heard that he's a super locker room guy or that he has vast wisdom to impart.

now randle has the potential to count as a foundation piece. there's a good chance that he will be productive beyond his contract for at least a couple years.

Got to stay positive. I won't read into the media spin that we have no plan.


I actually try to be positive most of the time; I just can't right now. I don't think this is a case of the media kicking the lakers when they're down (which happens frequently). I think they have a point. like I said, it's either no plan or a bad plan that I'm seeing.


I agree with almost everything abeer said here. I've said virtually the same thing elsewhere. The one thing I disagree with is the Lakers don't have a plan. They do have a plan. The plan is to tread water until someone finally comes here for big money. I mean, that does qualify as a plan. It's just an incredibly naive one.
User avatar
Savory Griddles

 
Posts: 9048
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:56 am
Location: AV,CA

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby Savory Griddles on Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:07 am

therealdeal wrote:Chris Webber talked about how in the 90s nobody was comfortable taking that mantle until Shaq. When will we get another shot at a guy like Shaq? I don't know.


And just a quick note on this: Shaq came to a team with Nick Van Exel, Eddie Jones, Cedric Ceballos (who was traded for Horry)...they were a 50+ win team. Shaq didn't jump into a trash heap like the Lakers are now. He jumped into a nice feathery bed. We aren't "developing" young players. We are picking up castoffs and seeing if we can get lucky and turn them around (at which point they probably leave us for more money like Meeks). We aren't "stockpiling" young talent. We are sifting through garbage like a bum..."Ooo. Look at this thing! I can't believe someone would throw this away. Maybe with a little elbow grease I can make this look decent." :man10:
User avatar
Savory Griddles

 
Posts: 9048
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:56 am
Location: AV,CA

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby therealdeal on Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:19 am

I'm on my phone all day today so it's hard to post, but to me we're just in to different mentalities. I don't see two 26 year old washouts on our roster? Lin and Hill? Those guys are no washouts. They're not stars, but they're good role players.

Hill's bird rights don't preclude us from re-signing him on a friendly deal. Davis could be overpaid, but at least that ball is in our court. We have a chance to retain him if we'd like. Either he proves valuable and we keep him (Young) or some team throws enough at him and he leaves. I don't see that as a bad thing.

We're in a rebuild now. The path Is going to be long since we have no picks. I don't understand the mentality that we are this rudderless thing floating around. We grab young guys, give them a shot, if they prove valuable we keep them and if they don't we move on. Outside of grabbing a couple 2nd tier guys, this is the only way to rebuild.

For the record I was on board with the Stephenson/ Monroe plan. I thought it made more sense than this one. But now we're on to this plan and I'm okay with that too. If we go into next summer with just one of our young guys re-signed like Lin or Hill then we're looking at a decent rebuild method. If we let every single one of our expirings go I'll be more pessimistic. As it is... this is a rebuild and there's no great way to do it unless you're lucky in the draft and we have no picks.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40357
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby therealdeal on Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:22 am

Savory Griddles wrote:
therealdeal wrote:Chris Webber talked about how in the 90s nobody was comfortable taking that mantle until Shaq. When will we get another shot at a guy like Shaq? I don't know.


And just a quick note on this: Shaq came to a team with Nick Van Exel, Eddie Jones, Cedric Ceballos (who was traded for Horry)...they were a 50+ win team. Shaq didn't jump into a trash heap like the Lakers are now. He jumped into a nice feathery bed. We aren't "developing" young players. We are picking up castoffs and seeing if we can get lucky and turn them around (at which point they probably leave us for more money like Meeks). We aren't "stockpiling" young talent. We are sifting through garbage like a bum..."Ooo. Look at this thing! I can't believe someone would throw this away. Maybe with a little elbow grease I can make this look decent." :man10:

Earl Clark. Jodie Meeks. Jordan Farmar. Jordan Hill. Nick Young.

All of those guys were garbage? They just earned new lucrative contracts.

As for Shaq my point still stands. A guy has to WANT this mantle and we couldn't find anyone after Magic until Shaq who was both able and willing to carry this franchise. It could take a while.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40357
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby therealdeal on Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:28 am

lukewaltonsdad wrote:
LOS ANGELES — What do parents do if they've spoiled their children for many, many years and then realize that their kids are woefully unready for the harsh realities of normal, rugged life?

That's essentially the question the Lakers must now answer, and one I posed to general manager Mitch Kupchak on Sunday in Las Vegas at the NBA's annual summer league gathering.

To be precise, I asked, "For Lakers fans who are impatient and want to see something big happen, is there anything you can tell them besides, 'Hey, next year there will be another free agency and we'll keep going for it—and then one after that'?"

"We're not giving up on this summer and this year, that's for sure," Kupchak replied. "There still are possibilities. But we're just going to keep working at it and look for opportunities to remain competitive, contending and flexible."

Both the question and the answer speak to the vague limbo in which the team exists right now.

The Lakers missed the playoffs for just the third time in the past 38 years—with 10 NBA championships in that time and six other NBA Finals appearances in that period. Lakers fans don't know what to make of this world in which they have been asked to accept mediocrity. They don't know that rebuilding usually takes time and a little unforeseen good fortune.

They are spoiled rotten.

Again, it's only a byproduct of the parenting. Over the years, the Lakers have given their fans every reason to grow comfortable with a certain standard of living.

But with happy days gone and not on the horizon, fans are already frustrated.

Los Angeles' acquisition of Carlos Boozer on Thursday prompted the latest toy-throwing tantrum by fans of wanting to win now-now-now!

In Boozer, the Lakers got a solid NBA player for a below-average salary—a bid of $3.25 million, per ESPN.com's Marc Stein—in an honest attempt to win more next season.

Yet the move was greeted with a chorus of criticism in some quarters of Lakers fandom, claiming that anyone another club is paying not to play for it is just embarrassing. It's beneath the royal Lakers to add another team's castoffs, as it was unseemly to let the Houston Rockets use them as a Jeremy Lin salary-dumping ground—even if the move netted the guaranteed profit of a free first-round pick.

The Lakers shouldn't be taking other teams' overpaid rejects or helping other teams set up their title runs! We're the Lakers!

And Boozer even rhymes with "loser"!

True enough, Boozer doesn't play a winning style, but what's really at work here is that his resume looks underwhelming when you are used to having trustworthy leaders with unique, magic touches—Jerry Buss, Phil Jackson, Kobe Bryant…and you're really, really missing them.

Take the emotion out of it, and it's not that big of a deal.

Boozer gives the Lakers the kind a proven big-man scoring option that they don't have among the group of Jordan Hill, Julius Randle, Ed Davis, Robert Sacre and probably Ryan Kelly. Boozer's defensive shortcomings could also be muted if he plays next to a shot-blocker in Hill or Davis at all times.

What doesn't make sense for a rebuilding team is to give playing time to Boozer, 33 in November, ahead of guys who might work toward their ceilings and help the Lakers in the future. But there is also a credible argument to be made that adding Boozer is part of a broad-minded approach to ease the demands on Randle, who will be 20 in November, as a rookie.

Boozer will be making a little more than $3 million, the same as Chris Kaman got last season with the Lakers in a hot-and-mostly-cold season in the big-man rotation. And his contract expires at season's end, meaning he fits the team's key guideline of preserving salary-cap space to chase that big-time free agent a year from now.

That brings us back to the question posed to Kupchak about what exactly is the Lakers' future—and the truth that it's even harder for fans to deal with the present when there is relatively little growth for the future going on.

Non-Lakers fans are used to seeing various clubs go through full-out youth movements or investing in strong players who could evolve into stars. That hasn't been part of the Lakers' culture, and the lack of any substantial youth movement last season only fed fans' bratty attitudes, with so many feeling no appreciation for competing for the sake of competing.

Can we just get to the draft and free agency?

But is even that enough?

Fast-forward to Monday night in Las Vegas, and there was second-round pick Jordan Clarkson tipping in a Randle miss at the overtime buzzer to beat the Golden State Warriors. Though it was in an utterly meaningless summer league game, the display of competitiveness was weirdly inspiring.

Still, the team's present feels awkward with the knowledge that perhaps no marquee free agent is actually coming this summer.

But what should the Lakers have done instead? Surrender that future cap space with a four-year deal to Gordon Hayward at $63 million? Kyle Lowry at $48 million? Trevor Ariza, Channing Frye or Avery Bradley at $32 million each?

If you believe Eric Bledsoe is on the cusp of stardom, he also might've been attainable as a restricted free agent from the Phoenix Suns—though at the extreme cost of that future cap space earmarked for Kevin Love or Marc Gasol. Perhaps the only true miss was on the mercurial Lance Stephenson, who signed with the Charlotte Hornets for only two guaranteed years, something the Lakers could have afforded.

Carmelo Anthony's temporary interest skewed the summer storyline and raised hopes. But for as fun as that courtship was, it remains fundamentally questionable whether the Lakers are better off without Anthony. He would've been guaranteed $25.5 million at age 33, when he'll only be able to guard guys with bodies like, well, Carlos Boozer.

Since the Melo flirtation subsided, every summer day has just been another reality check.

And if the Lakers use their remaining $2.7 million salary-cap exception to bring in someone such as the oft-troubled Michael Beasley, 25, or offense-illiterate Al-Farouq Aminu, 23, that player will also get sneered at for not being a real rebuilding difference-maker.

The absolute uncertainty as to when some faceless free-agent superstar will choose the Lakers is what makes the suffering that much worse for their fans.

It doesn't even feel like rebuilding. It feels like waiting.

Because it pretty much is.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2133 ... ing-league


I agree pretty much with this. I think our rebuild just doesn't smell right because we're not tanking to get picks, but we don't have picks. We're not trying to lose, but we have Kobe so he'll basically keep us out of the bottom 10 if he's even marginally healthy.

Our rebuild is awkward, but still a rebuild.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40357
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby TIME on Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:46 am

C'mon Savory, players like Ed Davis are not trash. It sounds pretty ridiculous to describe him like that. We got a steal. He is young and he is talented. The fact that his former team let him go and we swooped in at an amazingingly low 1m per price doesn't automatically downgrade the reality of his true value.

abeer, IF Ed Davis blows up, as you described, sure he will get paid next year, but there is no certainty that he will get overpaid. Gordon Heyward got overpaid, but Lance did not. Others got overpaid but Nick Young signed a reasonable deal. We should all hope Ed Davis will blow up, and that he will like it here so much that he will sign for 5m per long term.

No one is saying that the FO is golden right now. They are obviously feeling their way without Dr. Buss' steady hand to guide them. But there are real indicators that they are not as clueless as they are popularly being portrayed right now.
I'm lost in the fog of denial!
User avatar
TIME
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9447
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:06 am

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby Savory Griddles on Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:50 am

therealdeal wrote:
Savory Griddles wrote:
therealdeal wrote:Chris Webber talked about how in the 90s nobody was comfortable taking that mantle until Shaq. When will we get another shot at a guy like Shaq? I don't know.


And just a quick note on this: Shaq came to a team with Nick Van Exel, Eddie Jones, Cedric Ceballos (who was traded for Horry)...they were a 50+ win team. Shaq didn't jump into a trash heap like the Lakers are now. He jumped into a nice feathery bed. We aren't "developing" young players. We are picking up castoffs and seeing if we can get lucky and turn them around (at which point they probably leave us for more money like Meeks). We aren't "stockpiling" young talent. We are sifting through garbage like a bum..."Ooo. Look at this thing! I can't believe someone would throw this away. Maybe with a little elbow grease I can make this look decent." :man10:

Earl Clark. Jodie Meeks. Jordan Farmar. Jordan Hill. Nick Young.

All of those guys were garbage? They just earned new lucrative contracts.

As for Shaq my point still stands. A guy has to WANT this mantle and we couldn't find anyone after Magic until Shaq who was both able and willing to carry this franchise. It could take a while.


Nick Van Exel and Eddie Jones were all-stars. Ceballos was an all-star (though traded for Horry). Are you seriously comparing Earl Clark to Horry? Or Farmar to Nick the Quick? Or Meeks and Young to Eddie Jones? I mean...dude? :man3: :man10:

The problem is all the "young talent" we've accumulated (Lin, Hill, Young, etc.) has only Young signed long term. Let's say Lin plays well and Hill plays well. We may be able to restructure Hill, but lets say we need to fork over like 12 million per season (combined) to retain both Lin and Hill to long term deals. We now have a "max slot" occupied by 3 decent bench guys. None of those three are remotely close to NvE, Eddie Jones, or Ceballos. Heck, Elden Campbell was probably better than any of our current young talent. None of those three are likely starters on a championship squad except for MAYBE Lin in the right situation.

It's kind of a no win situation because if they play well enough to be cornerstones to attract big free agents, they will likely ask for too much to pay them and said free agents. That's why the Stephenson thing was so maddening. 9 million could have turned out to be way, way below market value for him.
User avatar
Savory Griddles

 
Posts: 9048
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:56 am
Location: AV,CA

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby Savory Griddles on Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:57 am

TIME wrote:C'mon Savory, players like Ed Davis are not trash. It sounds pretty ridiculous to describe him like that. We got a steal. He is young and he is talented. The fact that his former team let him go and we swooped in at an amazingingly low 1m per price doesn't automatically downgrade the reality of his true value.


OK. He's not trash, but if he turns out to be great, will our front office commit to him long term? He's using us as an audition to get a big contract. If we sign him to a big contract, then we have less money to get the big fish. I like the Nick Young signing. It's a nice little deal. But as nice as it it, we can only sign so many players to that sort of deal and still keep enough cap space to sign the big fish. And we need to start accumulating starters. Right now, Randle and MAYBE Lin (in the perfect situation) are the only two dudes on our roster under the age of 26 who could be starters on a championship contender.

I will concede that Davis isn't trash. But it's really only a one year deal. When next offseason starts, he will be just another free agent. As if he played with Phoenix or Atlanta. We will have to fork over money to get him again.
User avatar
Savory Griddles

 
Posts: 9048
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:56 am
Location: AV,CA

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby lakerfan2 on Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:11 am

Savory Griddles wrote:
TIME wrote:C'mon Savory, players like Ed Davis are not trash. It sounds pretty ridiculous to describe him like that. We got a steal. He is young and he is talented. The fact that his former team let him go and we swooped in at an amazingingly low 1m per price doesn't automatically downgrade the reality of his true value.


OK. He's not trash, but if he turns out to be great, will our front office commit to him long term? He's using us as an audition to get a big contract. If we sign him to a big contract, then we have less money to get the big fish. I like the Nick Young signing. It's a nice little deal. But as nice as it it, we can only sign so many players to that sort of deal and still keep enough cap space to sign the big fish. And we need to start accumulating starters. Right now, Randle and MAYBE Lin (in the perfect situation) are the only two dudes on our roster under the age of 26 who could be starters on a championship contender.

I will concede that Davis isn't trash. But it's really only a one year deal. When next offseason starts, he will be just another free agent. As if he played with Phoenix or Atlanta. We will have to fork over money to get him again.


If we can get him on a solid deal like Nick Young, with the big man multiplier of course, than why not? Say he turns into another Jordan Hill, we can have them outbid each other on who's willing to take less. It'd be nice to get young bigs on these mel type contracts with some years so that when the TV deal comes, then they look like even more of a bargain say we get him for like $30M/4years or something.
#OURHOUSE
User avatar
lakerfan2

 
Posts: 9920
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:23 pm

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby 1bartg22 on Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:15 am

LakersN4 wrote:
1bartg22 wrote:So, is this a reasonable depth chart projection for our front court?

PF: Boozer/Randle/Kelly
C: Hill/Davis/Sacre

Now all we need is another SF, and a guard to fill out the roster. Maybe the rest of the depth chart will project like this...

PG: Lin/Clarkson/Nash
SG: Kobe/Henry/DeAndre Kane
SF: Evan Turner/Swaggy P/Henry
PF: Boozer/Randle/Kelly
C: Hill/Davis/Sacre

Mitch always leaves 1 roster spot open, so this leaves us with 14 players. Reasonable?

That's 15.


No, I put Henry at both SG and SF. It's 14.
1bartg22

 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 12:45 am

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby 1bartg22 on Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:19 am

ElginTheGreat wrote:
Battle Tested20 wrote:
1bartg22 wrote:So, is this a reasonable depth chart projection for our front court?

PF: Boozer/Randle/Kelly
C: Hill/Davis/Sacre

Now all we need is another SF, and a guard to fill out the roster. Maybe the rest of the depth chart will project like this...

PG: Lin/Clarkson/Nash
SG: Kobe/Henry/DeAndre Kane
SF: Evan Turner/Swaggy P/Henry
PF: Boozer/Randle/Kelly
C: Hill/Davis/Sacre

Mitch always leaves 1 roster spot open, so this leaves us with 14 players. Reasonable?


No Kane. The guy is just awful


Kane (and several others) has not looked good, but he is a better player than what we have seen. Won't lose any sleep if we cut him, but I continue to believe a lot of the guys on the summer league team are suffering because we don't have a full coaching staff in place.


Exactly. People are sleeping on Kane. Beauboius (or however you spell it), was given too many minutes, for too little production. Kane did some nice things while he was in the game. Not necessarily scoring, but nice passes, defense, hustling. I like him. It remains to be seen whom we sign from that team. I like Thompkins too, but we just signed 2 PF's.
1bartg22

 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 12:45 am

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby therealdeal on Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:20 am

Nope I never compared them at all, you did. I said Shaq was the first free agent willing to be the man in LA since Magic. You started talking about the other players. Regardless of those other players, Shaq was the first one to make the jump.

I agree that the Lakers need to build a team first. I didn't deny that. I'm just saying it's difficult to convince a person to make that jump.

In fact our pieces we're trying to accumulate now can be a part of that process. Lin, Hill, Davis, and Randle is a decent start given our position. It's not the best we could have done ( Stephenson) but it's a decent start considering how long rebuilds last.

And by the way the Cap explodes in two years. If we have a chance to nail down guys like Lin, Davis, and Hill for 5 million each we have a decent cast for around 20 to 25 million. That's a third of the cap and a decent cast before we have our other stars in place. That's what we need to do now and that's alright. That's a rebuild.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40357
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby Savory Griddles on Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:20 am

lakerfan2 wrote:
Savory Griddles wrote:
TIME wrote:C'mon Savory, players like Ed Davis are not trash. It sounds pretty ridiculous to describe him like that. We got a steal. He is young and he is talented. The fact that his former team let him go and we swooped in at an amazingingly low 1m per price doesn't automatically downgrade the reality of his true value.


OK. He's not trash, but if he turns out to be great, will our front office commit to him long term? He's using us as an audition to get a big contract. If we sign him to a big contract, then we have less money to get the big fish. I like the Nick Young signing. It's a nice little deal. But as nice as it it, we can only sign so many players to that sort of deal and still keep enough cap space to sign the big fish. And we need to start accumulating starters. Right now, Randle and MAYBE Lin (in the perfect situation) are the only two dudes on our roster under the age of 26 who could be starters on a championship contender.

I will concede that Davis isn't trash. But it's really only a one year deal. When next offseason starts, he will be just another free agent. As if he played with Phoenix or Atlanta. We will have to fork over money to get him again.


If we can get him on a solid deal like Nick Young, with the big man multiplier of course, than why not? Say he turns into another Jordan Hill, we can have them outbid each other on who's willing to take less. It'd be nice to get young bigs on these mel type contracts with some years so that when the TV deal comes, then they look like even more of a bargain say we get him for like $30M/4years or something.


I get that. But we eventually have to start filling out a starting five. We can't approach Durant and say look at this awesome bench! We have Lin, Young and Davis! Reality is we need starters and other than Lin, I'm not sure any of those guys can start on a real contender.
User avatar
Savory Griddles

 
Posts: 9048
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:56 am
Location: AV,CA

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby LakersN4 on Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:25 am

1bartg22 wrote:
LakersN4 wrote:
1bartg22 wrote:So, is this a reasonable depth chart projection for our front court?

PF: Boozer/Randle/Kelly
C: Hill/Davis/Sacre

Now all we need is another SF, and a guard to fill out the roster. Maybe the rest of the depth chart will project like this...

PG: Lin/Clarkson/Nash
SG: Kobe/Henry/DeAndre Kane
SF: Evan Turner/Swaggy P/Henry
PF: Boozer/Randle/Kelly
C: Hill/Davis/Sacre

Mitch always leaves 1 roster spot open, so this leaves us with 14 players. Reasonable?

That's 15.


No, I put Henry at both SG and SF. It's 14.

True I didn't catch that. Henry is definitely too injury prone for us to be counting on him as a major part of our depth at both wing spots.
LakersN4

 
Posts: 2531
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:55 am

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby therealdeal on Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:30 am

Savory Griddles wrote:
lakerfan2 wrote:
Savory Griddles wrote:
TIME wrote:C'mon Savory, players like Ed Davis are not trash. It sounds pretty ridiculous to describe him like that. We got a steal. He is young and he is talented. The fact that his former team let him go and we swooped in at an amazingingly low 1m per price doesn't automatically downgrade the reality of his true value.


OK. He's not trash, but if he turns out to be great, will our front office commit to him long term? He's using us as an audition to get a big contract. If we sign him to a big contract, then we have less money to get the big fish. I like the Nick Young signing. It's a nice little deal. But as nice as it it, we can only sign so many players to that sort of deal and still keep enough cap space to sign the big fish. And we need to start accumulating starters. Right now, Randle and MAYBE Lin (in the perfect situation) are the only two dudes on our roster under the age of 26 who could be starters on a championship contender.

I will concede that Davis isn't trash. But it's really only a one year deal. When next offseason starts, he will be just another free agent. As if he played with Phoenix or Atlanta. We will have to fork over money to get him again.


If we can get him on a solid deal like Nick Young, with the big man multiplier of course, than why not? Say he turns into another Jordan Hill, we can have them outbid each other on who's willing to take less. It'd be nice to get young bigs on these mel type contracts with some years so that when the TV deal comes, then they look like even more of a bargain say we get him for like $30M/4years or something.


I get that. But we eventually have to start filling out a starting five. We can't approach Durant and say look at this awesome bench! We have Lin, Young and Davis! Reality is we need starters and other than Lin, I'm not sure any of those guys can start on a real contender.

I'm not sure I agree that can't be starters, but even if that's true we don't have a ton of options. We don't have draft picks, we struck out on major free agents... I think besides adding Stephenson there weren't a ton of guys out there that fit your description for sure. I personally loved Monroe but who knows if what you said applies to him. A lot of people had their reservations on that. By keeping a max slot open you have an opportunity to grab that guy while developing guys like Davis and Randle and Hill. Maybe one of those guys steps into his career with us, it's happened before. If not we have at least a chance at getting one in free agency.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40357
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby lakerfan2 on Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:38 am

Savory Griddles wrote:
lakerfan2 wrote:
Savory Griddles wrote:
TIME wrote:C'mon Savory, players like Ed Davis are not trash. It sounds pretty ridiculous to describe him like that. We got a steal. He is young and he is talented. The fact that his former team let him go and we swooped in at an amazingingly low 1m per price doesn't automatically downgrade the reality of his true value.


OK. He's not trash, but if he turns out to be great, will our front office commit to him long term? He's using us as an audition to get a big contract. If we sign him to a big contract, then we have less money to get the big fish. I like the Nick Young signing. It's a nice little deal. But as nice as it it, we can only sign so many players to that sort of deal and still keep enough cap space to sign the big fish. And we need to start accumulating starters. Right now, Randle and MAYBE Lin (in the perfect situation) are the only two dudes on our roster under the age of 26 who could be starters on a championship contender.

I will concede that Davis isn't trash. But it's really only a one year deal. When next offseason starts, he will be just another free agent. As if he played with Phoenix or Atlanta. We will have to fork over money to get him again.


If we can get him on a solid deal like Nick Young, with the big man multiplier of course, than why not? Say he turns into another Jordan Hill, we can have them outbid each other on who's willing to take less. It'd be nice to get young bigs on these mel type contracts with some years so that when the TV deal comes, then they look like even more of a bargain say we get him for like $30M/4years or something.


I get that. But we eventually have to start filling out a starting five. We can't approach Durant and say look at this awesome bench! We have Lin, Young and Davis! Reality is we need starters and other than Lin, I'm not sure any of those guys can start on a real contender.


That's because you haven't seen these guys with any consistent minutes. Think about it.

Hill in MDA's random rotations. When he played, he was a really terrific player and he earned his contract tbh. Ed Davis stuck behind Marc Gasol and Zbo. Lin out of his element behind Harden and Howard, even though he still did a decent job in Houston, not worth the contract, but definitely a good player.

This is their chance to show that they are really good players, and if we strike it well with one of these players, it's just one step closer every time.

As Real said, since we don't have draft picks to start off with, we're picking up young, former lottery picks and seeing if they can blossom into the players they were projected to be. We've turned some guys we acquired into decent role players before. Ariza, Shannon Brown, Farmar, hell, Lamar never reached his full potential until he came here. It's just all about the opportunity.

And if they don't work out, we have the necessary cap space next year, and the year after that, to try and grab an established role player. We've redeemed somewhat in gaining some draft picks back and I have faith that Mitch can do more. Sure we've missed out some key players, but it's not like we can force these guys to play with us. These guys can do as they please, we just have to sometimes luck plays a part in signing a player or making a great deal. Considering we missed out on Melo, Plan B/C still looks good to me.
#OURHOUSE
User avatar
lakerfan2

 
Posts: 9920
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:23 pm

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby Savory Griddles on Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:43 am

therealdeal wrote:Nope I never compared them at all, you did. I said Shaq was the first free agent willing to be the man in LA since Magic. You started talking about the other players. Regardless of those other players, Shaq was the first one to make the jump.

I agree that the Lakers need to build a team first. I didn't deny that. I'm just saying it's difficult to convince a person to make that jump.

In fact our pieces we're trying to accumulate now can be a part of that process. Lin, Hill, Davis, and Randle is a decent start given our position. It's not the best we could have done ( Stephenson) but it's a decent start considering how long rebuilds last.

And by the way the Cap explodes in two years. If we have a chance to nail down guys like Lin, Davis, and Hill for 5 million each we have a decent cast for around 20 to 25 million. That's a third of the cap and a decent cast before we have our other stars in place. That's what we need to do now and that's alright. That's a rebuild.


I compared our current guys to those guys because it's THE REASON Shaq chose us. Right now we don't seem to be building a team. I really like the Randle pick. I like the Young signing and I would try to wrap Lin up right now. I'd be willing to throw a Nick Young contract at him before he's even played a game because a pg of his caliber for 4 years at 20 million is a good deal. I'm just not buying the one year deals we're "building" with because that's not building a home. That's renting. Ed Davis, Jeremy Lin, Hill...these guys aren't really building blocks until they are signed for more than a year. (And I look at Hill as a one year deal because we will have to redo his deal if we are going to get a big free agent AND keep him long term.) Once this season is over, our cupboard is bare again other than Young, Kobe, and Randle. Those guys (Ed Davis, Lin) are not our players. Kevin Love (for argument's sake) isn't going to look at our roster as having those guys because they are free agents.

I totally understand what you're saying. I agree with it in theory. But in a practical sense, since none of these guys are signed for more than one year, they can't be considered building blocks or part of a rebuild. Meeks played pretty well last year, and he bolted. If Lin plays like NY Knick Lin, what is he going to command?

I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer. I like a few moves we've done this offseason, but what we're doing isn't "building" towards anything. The most promising additions to our roster this year can walk next offseason. If they're not locked up long term, they are not part of our building. They are stop gaps.
User avatar
Savory Griddles

 
Posts: 9048
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:56 am
Location: AV,CA

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby therealdeal on Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:48 am

I mean you're right but as long as they're on our team, they're our pieces and they're our building blocks. You're right that until they're signed longterm they're not true building blocks, but we're trying to a) preserve space for a home run and b) protect ourselves.

There's a chance these guys turn into Wes Johnsons and never make the jump. Then we're not going to be tied to them. They're basically our versions of 2nd round picks. Not ideal in the macro, but kind of the best we can do right now.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40357
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby wcsoldier81 on Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:06 pm

Rebuilding in a efficient way means getting/trying to get at least and commiting money to Thomas/Lance/Monroe type of player... not signing players (almost) nobody else want on one year deals .....

Offer a 13/14+ million by year deal to Monroe and see if the Piston match , try to get Lance (apparently we tried here) ... instead of quickly paying Hill 9 millions after Melo said no

Savory is totally right and his example of our situation and the players who were already on the roster before Shaq signed was dead on .... whereas some people here and there want us to believe Shaq became a Laker just because we were the Lakers and the LA/Hollywood life ... the main pb is our management seem to think they are going to get our next top player based on these "arguments"
wcsoldier81

 
Posts: 6428
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:20 am

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby lotus on Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:10 pm

wcsoldier81 wrote:.... whereas some people here and there want us to believe Shaq became a Laker just because we were the Lakers and the LA/Hollywood life

This is the mistake I hear a lot. L.A. living is not going to just bring top talent to L.A. Plus the taxes are exhorbitant. :man12:
lotus

 
Posts: 1865
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 8:15 am

Re: Carlos Boozer Discussion: Welcome to LA Carlos

Postby lakerfan2 on Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:16 pm

wcsoldier81 wrote:Rebuilding in a efficient way means getting/trying to get at least and commiting money to Thomas/Lance/Monroe type of player... not signing players (almost) nobody else want on one year deals .....

Offer a 13/14+ million by year deal to Monroe and see if the Piston match , try to get Lance (apparently we tried here) ... instead of quickly paying Hill 9 millions after Melo said no

Savory is totally right and his example of our situation and the players who were already on the roster before Shaq signed was dead on .... whereas some people here and there want us to believe Shaq became a Laker just because we were the Lakers and the LA/Hollywood life ... the main pb is our management seem to think they are going to get our next top player based on these "arguments"


Thomas no. Lance took another deal, not sure the terms of our interest, but if he wanted to be here, he would have.

And no one wants to touch Monroe because 1. No one wants to wait on Detroit to decide 2. No wants to put MAX in a player who isn't really that type of player...yet. so...3. Detroit would match any offer anyway
#OURHOUSE
User avatar
lakerfan2

 
Posts: 9920
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:23 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Lakers Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

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