Barnes To The Clippers

Doc Brown wrote:Meeks / Barnes / Ebanks / Jamison / Hill

2nd unit.

(Anything to kick Blake out of the lineup)

Sorry won't happen because Barnes is not coming back, Meeks is not and PG so Blake's is still in the lineup and there is nothing you can do about it.

Barnes is energy and a decent role player on the right team.... Our second unit is comprised of two vets (Blake and Jamison) two largely inexperienced players (Meeks and Hill) and one very inexperienced player in Ebanks.... We are in a win now mode... Ebanks needs a lot of time and encouragement to develop if he ever can... Barnes is a known commodity..... If we aren't still looking to improve the bench elsewhere we could give Barnes another look... I wouldn't be opposed.

Morris will be better off in the D-League for one more season. Nash/Blake/Duhon/Morris. If that is the case then a vet min Barnes is not a bad player to sign to a 1 year deal or a 1+1 with a team option. It will give Morris a chance to develop some more and get playing time. Barnes can play behind Peace or Ebanks.

Rooscooter wrote:Barnes is energy and a decent role player on the right team.... Our second unit is comprised of two vets (Blake and Jamison) two largely inexperienced players (Meeks and Hill) and one very inexperienced player in Ebanks.... We are in a win now mode... Ebanks needs a lot of time and encouragement to develop if he ever can... Barnes is a known commodity..... If we aren't still looking to improve the bench elsewhere we could give Barnes another look... I wouldn't be opposed.

I think when it comes to the Lakers we agree alot

Pass...

He's old, always injured and neither could shoot or play D... He is mentally weak and prone to technical fouls... He complains about playing time so he's a potential cancer too...

He is basically like Turiaf, nice hustle player but really doesn't do anything...

Azndude2190 wrote:

Rooscooter wrote:Barnes is energy and a decent role player on the right team.... Our second unit is comprised of two vets (Blake and Jamison) two largely inexperienced players (Meeks and Hill) and one very inexperienced player in Ebanks.... We are in a win now mode... Ebanks needs a lot of time and encouragement to develop if he ever can... Barnes is a known commodity..... If we aren't still looking to improve the bench elsewhere we could give Barnes another look... I wouldn't be opposed.

I think when it comes to the Lakers we agree alot

And I disagree a lot.

Just because Ebanks is young, doesn't mean he's a bad fit. In fact his youth gives him an advantage for a team that doesn't have much youth and athleticism on it anyway. Why should we get an older guy that has had injury issues when we've got a younger guy that's a great athlete?

Ebanks deserves a shot. Let's move in a different direction.

Are we really passing on players because we promised Ebanks playing time? I don't buy that one bit. I can't see Mitch and co. catering to one of our bench players. Ebanks doesn't deserve anything at this point. We are currently vying for a title, and should not be focusing on developing questionable second rounders. We need all the help we can get at this point.

If we can't grab a better wing than Barnes(which is unlikely). I would welcome him back, especially considering he would have a significantly lessened role due our off season additions.

therealdeal wrote:

Azndude2190 wrote:

Rooscooter wrote:Barnes is energy and a decent role player on the right team.... Our second unit is comprised of two vets (Blake and Jamison) two largely inexperienced players (Meeks and Hill) and one very inexperienced player in Ebanks.... We are in a win now mode... Ebanks needs a lot of time and encouragement to develop if he ever can... Barnes is a known commodity..... If we aren't still looking to improve the bench elsewhere we could give Barnes another look... I wouldn't be opposed.

I think when it comes to the Lakers we agree alot

And I disagree a lot.

Just because Ebanks is young, doesn't mean he's a bad fit. In fact his youth gives him an advantage for a team that doesn't have much youth and athleticism on it anyway. Why should we get an older guy that has had injury issues when we've got a younger guy that's a great athlete?

You are focusing on the athletic aspects...... I'm not a huge Barnes fan but if we experience an injury or two I'd rather have a guy with experience on the floor with our vets than a guy like Ebanks..... and in the playoffs I much rather have vets on the floor..... this year more than last year especially.... This is a win now proposition and I'm not sure we have time for a guy like Ebanks to "develop". We've been down this road a couple times before.... he had an amazing chance to cement his spot on this team last year and he just didn't perform....

Azndude2190 wrote:

Rooscooter wrote:Barnes is energy and a decent role player on the right team.... Our second unit is comprised of two vets (Blake and Jamison) two largely inexperienced players (Meeks and Hill) and one very inexperienced player in Ebanks.... We are in a win now mode... Ebanks needs a lot of time and encouragement to develop if he ever can... Barnes is a known commodity..... If we aren't still looking to improve the bench elsewhere we could give Barnes another look... I wouldn't be opposed.

I think when it comes to the Lakers we agree alot

I agree.....

I won't debate Ebanks getting a chance before or his merits with you again because we've been down that road and I'm not doing it again.

What i will say is that in the playoffs I don't want Barnes and his 30 something percent shooting, almost as many fouls as assists, and overall crappy play near my team. He's been horrible defensively and offensively detrimental in back to back playoffs.

As for wanting vets, weren't you one of the ones that wasn't excited about Nash because of his age? And jamison as well. Well where does that distinction end with Barnes? I'd rather have a young SF with upside and athleticism who can stick around with the other young athletes of this league than Barnes.

therealdeal wrote:I won't debate Ebanks getting a chance before or his merits with you again because we've been down that road and I'm not doing it again.

What i will say is that in the playoffs I don't want Barnes and his 30 something percent shooting, almost as many fouls as assists, and overall crappy play near my team. He's been horrible defensively and offensively detrimental in back to back playoffs.

As for wanting vets, weren't you one of the ones that wasn't excited about Nash because of his age? And jamison as well. Well where does that distinction end with Barnes? I'd rather have a young SF with upside and athleticism who can stick around with the other young athletes of this league than Barnes.

This is where coach Brown needs to come in. Phil Jackson was the only great coach I had ever seen who was pathetic at developing young players. Obviously Philip didn't care so we never could see if he could. But what separates the Pops and Sloan's of the world is they can maximize and sometimes exceed any players talent. Ebanks needs to be working on his 3 point shooting and slashing ability. If he can have some consistency in his 15-20 during the year in doing that, he will have a nice fat contract waiting for him next year and more then likely a championship ring.

therealdeal wrote:I won't debate Ebanks getting a chance before or his merits with you again because we've been down that road and I'm not doing it again.

What i will say is that in the playoffs I don't want Barnes and his 30 something percent shooting, almost as many fouls as assists, and overall crappy play near my team. He's been horrible defensively and offensively detrimental in back to back playoffs.

As for wanting vets, weren't you one of the ones that wasn't excited about Nash because of his age? And jamison as well. Well where does that distinction end with Barnes? I'd rather have a young SF with upside and athleticism who can stick around with the other young athletes of this league than Barnes.

I was for jettisoning all of the vets.... Barnes, MWP and even Pau after last season.... when we got Nash for next to nothing and then got Howard for basically Bynum things changed.... we went from a fading team of overpaid vets to a veteran team that, given good health, has as good a shot as anyone. I think my comments about Nash's age had less to do with him and more about who's backing him up..... that was solved when we got Duhon... that ensured that Morris won't be playing any meaningful minutes (I hope).

I don't really remember saying much of anything about Jamison other than it was a good acquisition. He's been injured in the recent past but he's a great pickup.

You may be thinking of my comments about McRoberts and Hill..... I'm still not completely sold on Hill....he had a great start but his last 4 or 5 games in the playoffs weren't very good... I hope he plays like the former and not the latter..

The team that finished last season wasn't going anywhere so getting youth, speed and developing players was what we needed at that time...... now.... it's two years and that's it for this group. Our bench is still thin and any injuries will put some guys on the floor that don't really belong in the league much less on a championship contending team...

Barnes isn't my favorite player by a long shot.... but if healthy he at least give effort and knows what to do. He will get the respect/trust of the vets before a guy like Ebanks IMHO.... Here's the thing about Ebanks... he plays slower than Barnes does..... so I'm not sure age has much to do with comparing the two.... As for shooting.... Barnes has demonstrated in the past that he can shoot at times..... Ebanks hasn't....

I like the idea of Barnes coming back alot for two reasons:

1) Guys like him thrive playing alongside Steve Nash. Gritty hustle guys like Shawn Marion, Jared Dudley and Boris Diaw come to mind. He will gobble up garbage baskets.

2) Barnes also thrived playing with D12, plus I think they're pretty good friends,

For the vet minimum, why not?

Rooscooter wrote:I was for jettisoning all of the vets.... Barnes, MWP and even Pau after last season.... when we got Nash for next to nothing and then got Howard for basically Bynum things changed.... we went from a fading team of overpaid vets to a veteran team that, given good health, has as good a shot as anyone. I think my comments about Nash's age had less to do with him and more about who's backing him up..... that was solved when we got Duhon... that ensured that Morris won't be playing any meaningful minutes (I hope).

Duhon solved a problem for you Roos? Duhon gave me more problems.

Duhon is easily the worst PG in the league and we should know something about that considering we just watched Blake for a season. It's possible that Morris is better than Duhon and that's not an exaggeration. I know what you mean though, depth is important and I suppose that worked out to an advantage because somebody is better than nobody.

Rooscooter wrote:I don't really remember saying much of anything about Jamison other than it was a good acquisition. He's been injured in the recent past but he's a great pickup.

I thought I recalled you being unenthusiastic because he's older. Maybe I'm wrong, but I could have sworn you weren't very excited because he's not a younger player.

Rooscooter wrote:You may be thinking of my comments about McRoberts and Hill..... I'm still not completely sold on Hill....he had a great start but his last 4 or 5 games in the playoffs weren't very good... I hope he plays like the former and not the latter..

I think Hill will be fine. He's only here really to give Howard a rest and looking at Howard's body of work that may not mean too much. Once Dwight gets into a rhythm, Jordan may only see 10 minutes a game.

Rooscooter wrote:The team that finished last season wasn't going anywhere so getting youth, speed and developing players was what we needed at that time...... now.... it's two years and that's it for this group. Our bench is still thin and any injuries will put some guys on the floor that don't really belong in the league much less on a championship contending team...

But you just said having Duhon was a help, now you're saying he doesn't belong on a Championship team?

I see what you're saying in guys like Goudelock (or Odom), Morris, and maybe Sacre, but Ebanks just isn't the same as those guys and it's not really close. Ebanks isn't an amazing player but he's not nearly as raw as those 3 (or 4) are or will be. I think if Ebanks goes down, we slide Kobe down or Jamison up. I think if Nash goes down, we slide Blake in. I think the only glaring person who, if they were injured we'd be absolutely out of luck, is Ron Artest. Ebanks can't really step in the way anyone else can.

Rooscooter wrote:
Barnes isn't my favorite player by a long shot.... but if healthy he at least give effort and knows what to do. He will get the respect/trust of the vets before a guy like Ebanks IMHO.... Here's the thing about Ebanks... he plays slower than Barnes does..... so I'm not sure age has much to do with comparing the two.... As for shooting.... Barnes has demonstrated in the past that he can shoot at times..... Ebanks hasn't....

Ebanks' play is different than Barnes, but slower? I don't buy it. Ebanks, when he's focused and working hard, is much, much more explosive than Barnes is. Remember his last game of the playoffs? Remember his performance against Durant to end the season?

Ebanks has shown flashes of being just as good on the floor as Barnes. He's not the hustler/dirty work guy that Barnes is, but he works hard all the same.

How much PT do you guys think Ebanks will get on the Lakers this season? Because in order for a player to progress and "develop" he needs meaningful playing time, which I don't think Ebanks will get.

Azndude2190 wrote:How much PT do you guys think Ebanks will get on the Lakers this season? Because in order for a player to progress and "develop" he needs meaningful playing time, which I don't think Ebanks will get.

Around 10-15 min per game.

I'm pretty sure that if we don't bring back Barnes, we're just going to give most of Barnes' minutes from last year to Ebanks. I can see him getting 20 minutes a game.

Helljumper wrote:I'm pretty sure that if we don't bring back Barnes, we're just going to give most of Barnes' minutes from last year to Ebanks. I can see him getting 20 minutes a game.

Depends on the matchup. I could see Antawn sliding to 3 and hill in at 4 in certain matchups

therealdeal wrote:

Azndude2190 wrote:

Rooscooter wrote:Barnes is energy and a decent role player on the right team.... Our second unit is comprised of two vets (Blake and Jamison) two largely inexperienced players (Meeks and Hill) and one very inexperienced player in Ebanks.... We are in a win now mode... Ebanks needs a lot of time and encouragement to develop if he ever can... Barnes is a known commodity..... If we aren't still looking to improve the bench elsewhere we could give Barnes another look... I wouldn't be opposed.

I think when it comes to the Lakers we agree alot

And I disagree a lot.

Just because Ebanks is young, doesn't mean he's a bad fit. In fact his youth gives him an advantage for a team that doesn't have much youth and athleticism on it anyway. Why should we get an older guy that has had injury issues when we've got a younger guy that's a great athlete?

I have to agree with Mr. Realdizzle. Barnes was absolutely atrocious the last two playoffs. I mean his shots were WAY off. People can play the injury card all they want but Barnes has never been a consistent performer in his career anyways. We don't need anymore vets, we have plenty. And in the playoffs you can rest assure that at least one or two of them will always be on the floor with Ebanks. Plus we Nash now, who's a great vocal leader. That was something we were missing last year. He's like our new Fisher...but with skills.

I say give Ebanks another chance. Not everyone is going to shine their first time through. He still has the potential to get better while Matt is past his prime and durability is becoming a major issue for him. But at the end of the day, we're not really depending on either of these guys to help us win a title. So we can afford to wait for Ebanks to develop. We always have Jamison to play the 3 if we need.

therealdeal wrote:

Rooscooter wrote:
Barnes isn't my favorite player by a long shot.... but if healthy he at least give effort and knows what to do. He will get the respect/trust of the vets before a guy like Ebanks IMHO.... Here's the thing about Ebanks... he plays slower than Barnes does..... so I'm not sure age has much to do with comparing the two.... As for shooting.... Barnes has demonstrated in the past that he can shoot at times..... Ebanks hasn't....

Ebanks' play is different than Barnes, but slower? I don't buy it. Ebanks, when he's focused and working hard, is much, much more explosive than Barnes is. Remember his last game of the playoffs? Remember his performance against Durant to end the season?

Ebanks has shown flashes of being just as good on the floor as Barnes. He's not the hustler/dirty work guy that Barnes is, but he works hard all the same.

Yup. And I love Ebanks fearlessness. He doesn't get intimidated by opposing star players. Offensively, his game is already more polished than Barnes. I think Barnes greatest strength is his rebounding. And that's where he gets a lot of his points, from putbacks. But when he's not rebounding well, he's a huge detriment to the team. He can't shoot the 3 and his his slashing game, which used to be good, has been awful. He still makes the right cuts, but the way he finishes have been very Fisher-esque.

XXIV wrote:

Azndude2190 wrote:How much PT do you guys think Ebanks will get on the Lakers this season? Because in order for a player to progress and "develop" he needs meaningful playing time, which I don't think Ebanks will get.

Around 10-15 min per game.

If we blow out teams on a consistent basis then he'll get more PT. But that's something we haven't done since forever. Maybe since Shaq left