Kenyon Martin: why u no want me?

Oh please Roos, it wasn't like McRoberts was even playing with our team. He was dead weight.

Rooscooter wrote:

JSM wrote:With Dwight not at 100% for the first couple months and with McBob going to Orlando, come on down!

Well.... so much for getting younger....

Now the "Trade" is Bynum and McRoberts for Howard..... I'm not that enthused anymore that we had to kick in a low cost high upside player like McRoberts and keep garbage like just about everyone else on the bench.....

Starting 5 a little better..... bench weaker..... even with "Lips".....

Sorry buddy, time for you to put that McBob jersey up on Craigslist for free

JSM wrote:^ Brown has shown he won't play McBob anyway and for his pricetag, that's unacceptable.

K-Mart is significantly better defensively at multiple positions, Brown will actually play him.

Well..... playing Morris for one minute for free was unacceptable..... if we are getting down to brass tacks.....

I'm not a fan in the least of K-Mart..... he's been a punk and has come close to injuring players a few times intentionally over the years....

You're right that McRoberts didn't get a real chance...... McRoberts game is taylor made for the Princeton offense while K-mart really doesn't have much of an offensive game.

Finally, Martin will miss a third of the season most likely..... he always seems to be injured in one way or another....

McBob costs almost 4 mil more than Clark, to provide nothing as the 5th big. It was just a cost reduction move.

D.B. Cooper wrote:

Rooscooter wrote:

JSM wrote:With Dwight not at 100% for the first couple months and with McBob going to Orlando, come on down!

Well.... so much for getting younger....

Now the "Trade" is Bynum and McRoberts for Howard..... I'm not that enthused anymore that we had to kick in a low cost high upside player like McRoberts and keep garbage like just about everyone else on the bench.....

Starting 5 a little better..... bench weaker..... even with "Lips".....

Sorry buddy, time for you to put that McBob jersey up on Craigslist for free

The thought that any Laker fan could welcome a punk like Martin with open arms is a little telling isn't it?....

Phil XI wrote:McBob costs almost 4 mil more than Clark, to provide nothing as the 5th big. It was just a cost reduction move.

Is Clark paying us 1 million to play here?.... That is a bargain......

Rooscooter wrote:

Phil XI wrote:McBob costs almost 4 mil more than Clark, to provide nothing as the 5th big. It was just a cost reduction move.

Is Clark paying us 1 million to play here?.... That is a bargain......

Because of the dollar for dollar luxury tax its 4 million.

Rooscooter wrote:

D.B. Cooper wrote:

Rooscooter wrote:

JSM wrote:With Dwight not at 100% for the first couple months and with McBob going to Orlando, come on down!

Well.... so much for getting younger....

Now the "Trade" is Bynum and McRoberts for Howard..... I'm not that enthused anymore that we had to kick in a low cost high upside player like McRoberts and keep garbage like just about everyone else on the bench.....

Starting 5 a little better..... bench weaker..... even with "Lips".....

Sorry buddy, time for you to put that McBob jersey up on Craigslist for free

The thought that any Laker fan could welcome a punk like Martin with open arms is a little telling isn't it?....

Won't be the first time we welcome a punk. If he can RB and defend G, SF, and PF at a lower price then ya.

therealdeal wrote:Oh please Roos, it wasn't like McRoberts was even playing with our team. He was dead weight.

...and when he did, he was strangely passive given his potential. Then again, the whole 2012 season was on the job training for everyone involved. It was tough on certain players not knowing WHEN they will play and HOW they were supposed to play. The suprise emergence of Hill made McRoberts expedable.

gcclaker wrote:

therealdeal wrote:Oh please Roos, it wasn't like McRoberts was even playing with our team. He was dead weight.

...and when he did, he was strangely passive given his potential. Then again, the whole 2012 season was on the job training for everyone involved. It was tough on certain players not knowing WHEN they will play and HOW they were supposed to play. The suprise emergence of Hill made McRoberts expedable.

I don't disagree with this one bit.... the Hill "emergence" scares me more than keeping McRoberts. He played for two teams previously that both had a need at his position..... and yet he was basically let go by each.... up until our last 20 games and the playoffs he showed very little in the league.

Our bench is becoming a bunch of single use players..... other than Jamison we have no scorers or shooters on the bench that can be counted on.

Defense hasn't been our biggest issue the last two years..... our inability to finish games and find a way to score down the stretch are the reasons we didn't advance the last two years...... not defense and rebounding. Having a bench of players that can't keep leads the starters provide will result in more of the same I'm afraid...... big early leads that dwindle and a close finish..... I'm also concerned with the age of the team and the lack of minute eating people on our bench. A significant injury to one of the starters and we are playing someone like Sacre or Morris or Ebanks significant minutes..... that should put it in perspective.

Rooscooter wrote:

gcclaker wrote:

therealdeal wrote:Oh please Roos, it wasn't like McRoberts was even playing with our team. He was dead weight.

...and when he did, he was strangely passive given his potential. Then again, the whole 2012 season was on the job training for everyone involved. It was tough on certain players not knowing WHEN they will play and HOW they were supposed to play. The suprise emergence of Hill made McRoberts expedable.

I don't disagree with this one bit.... the Hill "emergence" scares me more than keeping McRoberts. He played for two teams previously that both had a need at his position..... and yet he was basically let go by each.... up until our last 20 games and the playoffs he showed very little in the league.

Our bench is becoming a bunch of single use players..... other than Jamison we have no scorers or shooters on the bench that can be counted on.

Defense hasn't been our biggest issue the last two years..... our inability to finish games and find a way to score down the stretch are the reasons we didn't advance the last two years...... not defense and rebounding. Having a bench of players that can't keep leads the starters provide will result in more of the same I'm afraid...... big early leads that dwindle and a close finish..... I'm also concerned with the age of the team and the lack of minute eating people on our bench. A significant injury to one of the starters and we are playing someone like Sacre or Morris or Ebanks significant minutes..... that should put it in perspective.

Not worried because the only time you'll see 5 bench guys at the same time is during blowouts. I sure mike will have at least 2 starters with the "bench"

D.B. Cooper wrote:

Rooscooter wrote:

gcclaker wrote:

therealdeal wrote:Oh please Roos, it wasn't like McRoberts was even playing with our team. He was dead weight.

...and when he did, he was strangely passive given his potential. Then again, the whole 2012 season was on the job training for everyone involved. It was tough on certain players not knowing WHEN they will play and HOW they were supposed to play. The suprise emergence of Hill made McRoberts expedable.

I don't disagree with this one bit.... the Hill "emergence" scares me more than keeping McRoberts. He played for two teams previously that both had a need at his position..... and yet he was basically let go by each.... up until our last 20 games and the playoffs he showed very little in the league.

Our bench is becoming a bunch of single use players..... other than Jamison we have no scorers or shooters on the bench that can be counted on.

Defense hasn't been our biggest issue the last two years..... our inability to finish games and find a way to score down the stretch are the reasons we didn't advance the last two years...... not defense and rebounding. Having a bench of players that can't keep leads the starters provide will result in more of the same I'm afraid...... big early leads that dwindle and a close finish..... I'm also concerned with the age of the team and the lack of minute eating people on our bench. A significant injury to one of the starters and we are playing someone like Sacre or Morris or Ebanks significant minutes..... that should put it in perspective.

Not worried because the only time you'll see 5 bench guys at the same time is during blowouts. I sure mike will have at least 2 starters with the "bench"

Exactly...... it will be an 82 game season..... with older players. If Nash is over 32 minutes a game we will wear him out by playoff time. Kobe needs to be around 32 minutes as well if he's going to still be the iso-game closer for us. Pau needs more rest as well. The 66 game season nearly wore these guys out with no bench.... now we have only one legit player (and he's even older) on the bench.

Rooscooter wrote:I don't disagree with this one bit.... the Hill "emergence" scares me more than keeping McRoberts. He played for two teams previously that both had a need at his position..... and yet he was basically let go by each.... up until our last 20 games and the playoffs he showed very little in the league.

Our bench is becoming a bunch of single use players..... other than Jamison we have no scorers or shooters on the bench that can be counted on.

Defense hasn't been our biggest issue the last two years..... our inability to finish games and find a way to score down the stretch are the reasons we didn't advance the last two years...... not defense and rebounding. Having a bench of players that can't keep leads the starters provide will result in more of the same I'm afraid...... big early leads that dwindle and a close finish..... I'm also concerned with the age of the team and the lack of minute eating people on our bench. A significant injury to one of the starters and we are playing someone like Sacre or Morris or Ebanks significant minutes..... that should put it in perspective.

Our bench is still a point of concern, but the acquisition of Howard goes so far beyond plain defense. You're underselling other valuable additions he provides: getting the other team into foul trouble, more consistent rebounding efforts, and more efficient offensive play (uglier, but still effective).

As for Martin, like I said: slide Jamison up and move Martin to the 4. Bring in a guy like Barbosa, and our bench is set. That keeps Ebanks off the floor (we all know you hate him), gives the Lakers shooting with Jamison out there along with probably Blake and Barbosa, and defensively we matchup well with Martin and Hill down low.

This possible acquisition would make more sense now considering we traded McBob and we may not have Howard until January/February.

Lock this!! I already made an official 5th big aka the Earl Clark thread

Rooscooter wrote:

D.B. Cooper wrote:

Rooscooter wrote:

gcclaker wrote:

therealdeal wrote:Oh please Roos, it wasn't like McRoberts was even playing with our team. He was dead weight.

...and when he did, he was strangely passive given his potential. Then again, the whole 2012 season was on the job training for everyone involved. It was tough on certain players not knowing WHEN they will play and HOW they were supposed to play. The suprise emergence of Hill made McRoberts expedable.

I don't disagree with this one bit.... the Hill "emergence" scares me more than keeping McRoberts. He played for two teams previously that both had a need at his position..... and yet he was basically let go by each.... up until our last 20 games and the playoffs he showed very little in the league.

Our bench is becoming a bunch of single use players..... other than Jamison we have no scorers or shooters on the bench that can be counted on.

Defense hasn't been our biggest issue the last two years..... our inability to finish games and find a way to score down the stretch are the reasons we didn't advance the last two years...... not defense and rebounding. Having a bench of players that can't keep leads the starters provide will result in more of the same I'm afraid...... big early leads that dwindle and a close finish..... I'm also concerned with the age of the team and the lack of minute eating people on our bench. A significant injury to one of the starters and we are playing someone like Sacre or Morris or Ebanks significant minutes..... that should put it in perspective.

Not worried because the only time you'll see 5 bench guys at the same time is during blowouts. I sure mike will have at least 2 starters with the "bench"

Exactly...... it will be an 82 game season..... with older players. If Nash is over 32 minutes a game we will wear him out by playoff time. Kobe needs to be around 32 minutes as well if he's going to still be the iso-game closer for us. Pau needs more rest as well. The 66 game season nearly wore these guys out with no bench.... now we have only one legit player (and he's even older) on the bench.

What wore guys out was that our pg couldn't get other guys easy looks. Bad offense scheme, no camp, all that is different. We won't have 24 working hard for his shot or bringing the ball up. Ya Nash is older but you act like you've never seen Nash play. He's a crafty vet. I think you just want to throw things on the wall.

KareemTheGreat33 wrote:Lock this!! I already made an official 5th big aka the Earl Clark thread

Kid's been the league for 3 years now or so and shown NOTHING. If Roos doesn't like Ebanks, he's going to HATE this guy. (just messin' with ya Roos)

therealdeal wrote:

KareemTheGreat33 wrote:Lock this!! I already made an official 5th big aka the Earl Clark thread

Kid's been the league for 3 years now or so and shown NOTHING. If Roos doesn't like Ebanks, he's going to HATE this guy. (just messin' with ya Roos)

Hey..... let me at least look up some film and take a look at Basketball Reference before you start putting words in my mouth......

If you say I will like him less than Ebanks..... that doesn't give me any warm fuzzies...... that's for sure....

therealdeal wrote:

Rooscooter wrote:I don't disagree with this one bit.... the Hill "emergence" scares me more than keeping McRoberts. He played for two teams previously that both had a need at his position..... and yet he was basically let go by each.... up until our last 20 games and the playoffs he showed very little in the league.

Our bench is becoming a bunch of single use players..... other than Jamison we have no scorers or shooters on the bench that can be counted on.

Defense hasn't been our biggest issue the last two years..... our inability to finish games and find a way to score down the stretch are the reasons we didn't advance the last two years...... not defense and rebounding. Having a bench of players that can't keep leads the starters provide will result in more of the same I'm afraid...... big early leads that dwindle and a close finish..... I'm also concerned with the age of the team and the lack of minute eating people on our bench. A significant injury to one of the starters and we are playing someone like Sacre or Morris or Ebanks significant minutes..... that should put it in perspective.

Our bench is still a point of concern, but the acquisition of Howard goes so far beyond plain defense. You're underselling other valuable additions he provides: getting the other team into foul trouble, more consistent rebounding efforts, and more efficient offensive play (uglier, but still effective).

As for Martin, like I said: slide Jamison up and move Martin to the 4. Bring in a guy like Barbosa, and our bench is set. That keeps Ebanks off the floor (we all know you hate him), gives the Lakers shooting with Jamison out there along with probably Blake and Barbosa, and defensively we matchup well with Martin and Hill down low.

The enlarged part I'm not sure I agree with..... How can it be more efficient when he will be in the corner hiding from any contact when the game is on the line because he hasn't learned how to shoot free throws yet?.... And surely we aren't going to have him purposely touch the ball in close games down the stretch either. Having Nash will help a lot in those situations but with Pau's aversion to clutchness.... and Howard's kryptonite (free throw shooting) combined with MWP we will really have to rely on Kobe and Nash down the stretch now....

Dwight, Pau, Sacre, Hill, Jamison..Ron can play some PF too, solid PF/C rotation

Roos, man, you're so negative today...

Hill is really good; he has potential to be a real contributor this season.

KMart is a punk? Sure, but can he help us win?

The bench is not complete yet. We'll get a guard next, you'll see. And with that guard, Jamison, Hill, Blake and potentially Martin -- we're pretty good. Not amazing, I'll give you that, but those are solid role-players that probably won't miss many games. In addition, how many players do you truly need in the rotation in the playoffs? 8? 9? That's the best starting 5 in the league, plus Jamison, Hill and the new guard, and you still have Blake+Martin if you need them.

Are we now pretending that old Allen (who will produce less then Jamison), Miller, Haslem and 'Shard (who is an 8/4 player when given minutes at this point in his career) are a scary bench for some reason?

Rooscooter wrote:The enlarged part I'm not sure I agree with..... How can it be more efficient when he will be in the corner hiding from any contact when the game is on the line because he hasn't learned how to shoot free throws yet?.... And surely we aren't going to have him purposely touch the ball in close games down the stretch either. Having Nash will help a lot in those situations but with Pau's aversion to clutchness.... and Howard's kryptonite (free throw shooting) combined with MWP we will really have to rely on Kobe and Nash down the stretch now....

What does his play late have to do with efficiency? He was a more efficient player than Bynum was last season, that was my point. And we as a franchise won 3 Championships in a row with another Center who couldn't shoot free throws, remember? We'll make do.

So what if he can't hit free throws late? That's what we have Kobe and Nash for late in games anyway. Why are you nervous that Nash and Kobe have the ball late in games? Man, those are two of the DEADLIEST guys in the clutch! We're in GREAT shape down the stretch now. Howard's play late in games will come from lobs, dishes under the basket, and put-backs. He won't have the ball late until Kobe and Nash are retired.

I know you've been saying that our offense is what stalled late, but that's why we have Nash now. Pick and roll with Howard late, or have Kobe posted up on the block and guys moving off the ball. It's going to be gravy. I can't see why you're so negative about this man.

If we have to rely on Nash and Kobe in the clutch... I'm not really scared.

This is how old man Nash performs in the clutch on a scrub team, without having the luxury of playing with Mr. Bryant:

therealdeal wrote:

Rooscooter wrote:The enlarged part I'm not sure I agree with..... How can it be more efficient when he will be in the corner hiding from any contact when the game is on the line because he hasn't learned how to shoot free throws yet?.... And surely we aren't going to have him purposely touch the ball in close games down the stretch either. Having Nash will help a lot in those situations but with Pau's aversion to clutchness.... and Howard's kryptonite (free throw shooting) combined with MWP we will really have to rely on Kobe and Nash down the stretch now....

What does his play late have to do with efficiency? He was a more efficient player than Bynum was last season, that was my point. And we as a franchise won 3 Championships in a row with another Center who couldn't shoot free throws, remember? We'll make do.

So what if he can't hit free throws late? That's what we have Kobe and Nash for late in games anyway. Why are you nervous that Nash and Kobe have the ball late in games? Man, those are two of the DEADLIEST guys in the clutch! We're in GREAT shape down the stretch now. Howard's play late in games will come from lobs, dishes under the basket, and put-backs. He won't have the ball late until Kobe and Nash are retired.

I know you've been saying that our offense is what stalled late, but that's why we have Nash now. Pick and roll with Howard late, or have Kobe posted up on the block and guys moving off the ball. It's going to be gravy. I can't see why you're so negative about this man.

I don't buy those "designer stats" on efficiency, defensive rating, offensive rating etc.... When you have someone that is a liability in one facet of his game like Howard is at free throw shooting it can't help but being an inefficiency can it? I don't know how he helps us down 3 late in a game when having the ball in his hands..... That is my point..

Oh.... and before the Shaq thing gets brought up...... we had a 21 year old Kobe to take the pressure off....... not a 35 year old who is playing too many minutes....

karacha wrote:Roos, man, you're so negative today...

Hill is really good; he has potential to be a real contributor this season.

KMart is a punk? Sure, but can he help us win?

The bench is not complete yet. We'll get a guard next, you'll see. And with that guard, Jamison, Hill, Blake and potentially Martin -- we're pretty good. Not amazing, I'll give you that, but those are solid role-players that probably won't miss many games. In addition, how many players do you truly need in the rotation in the playoffs? 8? 9? That's the best starting 5 in the league, plus Jamison, Hill and the new guard, and you still have Blake+Martin if you need them.

Are we now pretending that old Allen (who will produce less then Jamison), Miller, Haslem and 'Shard (who is an 8/4 player when given minutes at this point in his career) are a scary bench for some reason?

Is what I'm posting any different than it was "Pre-Howard" trade? I wasn't really enthused with the idea of the trade in the first place and now that it's done I do feel a little better that we didn't' get saddled with crap players on huge contracts and we didn't have to give up additional assets to get him but I still feel pretty much the same about it...... his acquisition doesn't help our bench.... it doesn't help us close out games (unless we can get and maintain leads better with him) and one of the biggest punks in the league is rumored to come to the team.... I'm being pretty consistent.... some of you guys are all over the place given previous posts....

Howard coming with little in the way of losses other than Bynum makes a better team...... but it doesn't solve the issues we had with this roster before we got him does it?....

Hill's career tilts a lot more toward the bust side than it has to the productive player side.... he played great for us for 20 games and 4 or 5 in the playoffs. His performance against OKC was not real good at times as OKC adjusted to him a little. I actually like McRoberts overall game better than Hills game. Hill isn't much of anything other than a put-back guy on the offensive end and if we sign K-Mart we will have another clone in the second unit..... neither have a back to the basket game and neither have a face up game to speak of..... the potential of having both of them on the floor at the same time leaves the bench with extra defenders to contend with as sagging off of either of them is a high reward low risk proposition.

Finally, even if we "finish" the bench...... what kind of players can we get? Ancient ones or single dimensional ones.... or both...

I think I've been pretty consistent in wanting to move Pau for a couple pieces to balance the team.... I believe that it is even more necessary now that we have Howard. Our lack of shooting has been killing us for the last few years..... nothing we've done this offseason other than get Jamison has changed that.....