Bryon Russell

[Robby]

Did the Lakers sign him because I don't remember hearing anything about it? However, ESPN.com has Russell on the Lakers. Just look at the link below:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/movement?conf=west

I'll be so happy if this move actually happened. Adding Russell will help fill in some of the defensive void that could be present if Kobe has to leave the team.

[Robby]

It's true. Just read it off the LA times. It's not a guaranteed contract though. Here's an excerpt from the times:

The Lakers have agreed to terms on a contract with veteran forward Bryon Russell and have invited him to camp, Coach Phil Jackson said.

Russell, who averaged 4.5 points in limited minutes with the Washington Wizards last season, played the previous nine years with Malone in Utah. He is expected to sign with the Lakers today.

The contract is not guaranteed and Russell, 32, has not been assured a place on the regular-season roster. However, the Lakers have been told that Rick Fox, who had foot surgery in May, might not play until January and they are concerned that Bryant could miss games because of his legal entanglement.

Kupchak said Tuesday the Lakers would carry as many as 14 players, but probably not 15. Eleven of the 20 players in camp have guaranteed contracts and three — Horace Grant, Jannero Pargo and Jamal Sampson — have contracts that are partially guaranteed.

Jackson said he liked Russell's defensive mind-set, shooting knack and playoff experience, but said Russell would need "the grace of God," to make the club because of the limited roster space.

I'm really hoping that Rusell makes the team. It'd be great to see him and Malone celebrate if the Lakers win the chamionship.

[.]

cool....a nice shootign veteran forward, will play behind Devean George and maybe even behing Luke Walton....Still a nice pick-up

[VCFAN]

did Malone play with Russell a few years ago?

[Robby]

did Malone play with Russell a few years ago?

You're kidding, right? Yes, they were teammates on the Utah Jazz for about 9 years.

[Full Surface]

I'm glad for him. He played horrible with the Wizards though. I don't know why he wasn't able to shoot like himself. He kept missing so many 3's it was just frustrating.

He definitely has good chemistry with Malone.

[Vins15]

great pick up...Lakers definatly needs sum three point shooter...besides Fisher..and Murray was a disappointment so i'm sure Russel will take over if he gets playing time..

[Colin]

Hopefully Malone can make him regain some confidence from when he was a good player for the Jazz. Good pickup, might be able to give some of the rooks and young players a few veternan tips, maybe one on how to avoid getting pushed by MJ.

[Robby]

I really hope Bryon Russell makes the team. I would be devastated if Russell didn't make the team and someone like Janerro Pargo did. I think Russell could really fill in Rick Fox's role (spot up for 3 and defend the other team's best scorer) and Russel is a bit more athletic than Fox so he can help the Lakers quite a bit since Fox is going to be out at least until January.

[Bourbon]

I would be devastated if Russell didn't make the team and someone like Janerro Pargo did.

Hopefully you recover well from devastation, Robby. As you acknowledged earlier, Phil Jackson doesn't see Russell getting past training camp, and that's understandable. Also, I don't think it's fair to compare Russell's chances with Pargo's; they play two different positions. I could see Russell making last year's Laker squad, but not this year's. Consider the swingmen in front of him: Bryant, Fox, George, Walton, Rush.

Russel is a bit more athletic than Fox so he can help the Lakers quite a bit since Fox is going to be out at least until January.

Hmmmm, I'd rather have Fox defending guys like Peja Stojakovic over Bryon Russell. Maybe I'm crazy. Bryon's been a solid player, but his career's been in decline for several years now.

[Robby]

I would be devastated if Russell didn't make the team and someone like Janerro Pargo did.

Hopefully you recover well from devastation, Robby. As you acknowledged earlier, Phil Jackson doesn't see Russell getting past training camp, and that's understandable. Also, I don't think it's fair to compare Russell's chances with Pargo's; they play two different positions. I could see Russell making last year's Laker squad, but not this year's. Consider the swingmen in front of him: Bryant, Fox, George, Walton, Rush.

Thanks Bourbon, I'll live through it. As for the people in front of Russell, George and Kobe are the only ones ahead of Bryon at this point. Fox is going to be out at least until January. There is a lot of uncertainty surrounding Kobe and he may have to leave at any point in the season. I don't think Rush and Pargo should be considered above Russell. Pargo's a point but LA is set there because GP is a durable guy and Fisher usually doesn't take days off. Rush is a better shooter but Russell is a much better defender. I can't say anything about Walton because I've never seen him play. I think a lot of people forget what Russell could do on the court. He's struggled the past few years because of injury but he can still play and defend well. He also has a ton of playoff experience. Jackson likes veteran, defensive-minded guys (Horace Grant) and that's why Russell has a chance. But the thing hurting Russell is that most players have guaranteed contracts but Bryon will have to earn his spot and I hope he does.

[Bill Russell]

Well, the Lakers can't stop collecting bones... Old grumpy man Brian Shaw just retired some days ago and they did sign Bryon Russell... This guy's done... See his Washington days...

[mcbiggins]

It was a bit funny how the media found out about the Lakers signing Russell. After the first day of camp, Jackson was complaining to the press about how it wasn't the young guys he needed there to learn the system bu the new vets. He said he needed his Karl Malones and Byron Russells and Gary Paytons there ASAP. This was the first the press heard about russell being a Laker. The media guys then asked the GM gave the ol' "well we haven't complete discussions yet" answer.

[Bourbon]

There is a lot of uncertainty surrounding Kobe and he may have to leave at any point in the season.

Not really. Kobe's going to play all year, and would only see less action if his trial starts before the season's concluded. And that's a big "if."

I don't think Rush and Pargo should be considered above Russell. Pargo's a point but LA is set there because GP is a durable guy and Fisher usually doesn't take days off. Rush is a better shooter but Russell is a much better defender.

Again, I disagree. While Phil Jackson generally prefers veterans, there's also something to be said for players who know the triangle. (Rush and Pargo both played for Jackson, and both played with heart.) After all, if Russell actually was a "much better defender" than Rush, do you think Phil would say it would take "the grace of God" to make the team?

I think a lot of people forget what Russell could do on the court.

See, you're talking about what he could do. Sorry, but Russell's done, and he's been done. We saw that in Washington last year. Period.

[Fresh8]

It would be Awesome for the Lakers to sign Russel (BTW...is it Byron or Bryon...I believe it is Byron...but the Media gets it wrong and sometimes call him Bryon or sometimes...Byron...wats his name??)

Wat would the Roster be??

C: Shaq 6. Medvedenko
PF: Malone 7. Grant 12. Cook
SF: George 9.Walton 15. Rick Fox (Injured)
SG: Kobe 10. Rush 13. Russell
PG: Payton 11. Fisher 14. Pargo

There's 15 players who the Lakers could take...in the NBA can teams take more than 15 on there rosters and have the rest as reserves??

[Robby]

Not really. Kobe's going to play all year, and would only see less action if his trial starts before the season's concluded. And that's a big "if."

I know but what if Kobe has to leave for the playoffs and Fox still hasn't completly recovered from his injury. Then all the Lakers have is Devean George as a bona fide perimiter defender.

Again, I disagree. While Phil Jackson generally prefers veterans, there's also something to be said for players who know the triangle. (Rush and Pargo both played for Jackson, and both played with heart.) After all, if Russell actually was a "much better defender" than Rush, do you think Phil would say it would take "the grace of God" to make the team?

I think Russell knows the triangle fairly well too since the Jazz did go up against the Bulls in the Finals twice. If you had read my other post carefully, Phil said that Russell needs "the grace of God" to get a roster spot because he doesn't have a guaranteed contract, where as Pargo and Rush do. Russell has to overcome bigger hurdles to get a spot. Tell me, why would Russell even get an invitation if he wasn't a better defender that Pargo and Rush.

See, you're talking about what he could do. Sorry, but Russell's done, and he's been done. We saw that in Washington last year. Period.

No, talking about what he can still do. Russell didn't get much playing time in Washington because MJ and Stack got the bulk of the minutes. What you're doing is judging a player's abilities by just looking only at his playing time and ignoring other factors. If you saw him play last year, like I did, you'd see that he still has a lot left in him.

[air gordon]

i don't want to interrupt...

just wondering: if russell still is a serviceable player, why aren't other teams going after him? any team can use a player that can guard the sg/sf position well

[Robby]

i don't want to interrupt...

just wondering: if russell still is a serviceable player, why aren't other teams going after him? any team can use a player that can guard the sg/sf position well

Same reason many teams didn't go after Jim Jackson for a while and why the Kings let him go. Mark Jackson is still very good but he's a free agent as well.

[Bourbon]

Same reason many teams didn't go after Jim Jackson for a while and why the Kings let him go.

No, JJ had to wait for a call because nearly every viable contender with at least an outside shot at the title was nearing the luxury tax. Houston was only able to pick him up after dumping Glen Rice's $10 million salary to your boys in Utah. Trust me, it's not like every GM's thinking, "Man, if it weren't for that gosh darn salary cap, well, then we could sign Bryon Russell!"

I know but what if Kobe has to leave for the playoffs and Fox still hasn't completly recovered from his injury. Then all the Lakers have is Devean George as a bona fide perimiter defender.

What's Gary Payton, chopped liver?

I think Russell knows the triangle fairly well too since the Jazz did go up against the Bulls in the Finals twice.

So because Michael Jordan took Russell's money and ate his lunch for two consecutive years, Russell has a sufficient grasp on the nuances of the triangle? By your logic, every player in the NBA who's matched up against the Bulls and/or Lakers, or played against any other team who's ran variations of the triangle is equal to the task and "knows the triangle fairly well."

If you had read my other post carefully, Phil said that Russell needs "the grace of God" to get a roster spot because he doesn't have a guaranteed contract, where as Pargo and Rush do.

Thanks, but I think I read your post just fine. Although, if you would heed your own advice and read the original article carefully, you'd find that Pargo's contract is only semi-guaranteed; by no means is he assured a roster spot at this point.

Tell me, why would Russell even get an invitation if he wasn't a better defender that Pargo and Rush.

Let me put it this way: Maurice Carter, Eric Chenowith, Stephane Pelle, Ime Udoka, and Koko Archibong all received invitations to the Lakers' training camp. Does that make them better than Pargo and Rush? Will we see them suiting up for the purple and gold this year? Do I even need to answer this?

What you're doing is judging a player's abilities by just looking only at his playing time and ignoring other factors.

I didn't say cite his decrease in playing time to justify his obvious decline, although it still makes a compelling argument. Anyway, just look at his field goal percentage over the past three years. It's regressed from .440, to .383., to .353 last year. (How atrocious!) Russell's lost his ability to create his own shot, and the stats back it up.

If you saw him play last year, like I did, you'd see that he still has a lot left in him.

Now we're back to limp's question:

just wondering: if russell still is a serviceable player, why aren't other teams going after him? any team can use a player that can guard the sg/sf position well

Remember, you answered incorrectly the first time. The fact is, Robby, Bryon Russell had a decent career, but his time's passed. Have you ever criticized a member (past or present) of the Utah Jazz? It's okay to do so, I promise. I'm a Lakers fan, but that doesn't mean I'm going to defend Samaki Walker to the death, nor will I deny that until this summer, the L.A. front office fell asleep for the past five seasons. It's one thing to think a player's still got a lot left, but honestly, if he hadn't played for Utah, would you be saying the same thing?

[Robby]

No, JJ had to wait for a call because nearly every viable contender with at least an outside shot at the title was nearing the luxury tax. Houston was only able to pick him up after dumping Glen Rice's $10 million salary to your boys in Utah. Trust me, it's not like every GM's thinking, "Man, if it weren't for that gosh darn salary cap, well, then we could sign Bryon Russell!"

Exactly, I agree with that JJ point. Also, I know not every GM is trying to land Russell but there are some that would like to have Russell, which is more than you gave B-Russ credit for. I would liken him more to Mark Jackson and Anthony Mason, guys who can still play but are having difficulty landing a job because guys like KG and Shaq are taking up large chunks of their team's payroll.

What's Gary Payton, chopped liver?

Absolutely not! GP is the best defensive point guard in the history of the NBA but I would use him as a defender for guards not forwards. He'd be effective against Bibby, but would have a little bit of a tougher time against Peja. Having Russell would give LA a good defender against the more athletic 2's and 3's.

So because Michael Jordan took Russell's money and ate his lunch for two consecutive years, Russell has a sufficient grasp on the nuances of the triangle? By your logic, every player in the NBA who's matched up against the Bulls and/or Lakers, or played against any other team who's ran variations of the triangle is equal to the task and "knows the triangle fairly well."

Stop trying to generalize my point. Think about it, for the two weeks that the Jazz played the Bulls in the Finals each year, all Russell saw was the triangle and all of it's nuances. That's nearly a month of extensive studying of the triangle offense. But that by no means implies that he knows about the triangle as much as Pargo or Rush, but he does know the triangle a little bit more than you give him credit for.

Thanks, but I think I read your post just fine. Although, if you would heed your own advice and read the original article carefully, you'd find that Pargo's contract is only semi-guaranteed; by no means is he assured a roster spot at this point.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. But having a semi-guaranteed contract is better than having a non-guaranteed, isn't it? I do read all the posts carefully and fully respond to them unlike you who "selectively" read and respond to posts according to your convenience.

Let me put it this way: Maurice Carter, Eric Chenowith, Stephane Pelle, Ime Udoka, and Koko Archibong all received invitations to the Lakers' training camp. Does that make them better than Pargo and Rush? Will we see them suiting up for the purple and gold this year? Do I even need to answer this?

No, but Phil Jackson is at least talking about Russell adjusting to LA which means that Russell has a better shot at making the team than the players you mentioned.

I didn't say cite his decrease in playing time to justify his obvious decline, although it still makes a compelling argument. Anyway, just look at his field goal percentage over the past three years. It's regressed from .440, to .383., to .353 last year. (How atrocious!) Russell's lost his ability to create his own shot, and the stats back it up.

That's true, but you need to keep in mind that he played hurt for most of the 2001-02 season and got bad shots in Washigton last year, when he did get shots anyways. I agree that Russell's career is on its downside, but I don't think he's finished and has nothing left, like you said earlier.

Remember, you answered incorrectly the first time. The fact is, Robby, Bryon Russell had a decent career, but his time's passed. Have you ever criticized a member (past or present) of the Utah Jazz? It's okay to do so, I promise. I'm a Lakers fan, but that doesn't mean I'm going to defend Samaki Walker to the death, nor will I deny that until this summer, the L.A. front office fell asleep for the past five seasons. It's one thing to think a player's still got a lot left, but honestly, if he hadn't played for Utah, would you be saying the same thing?

How did I answer incorrectly the fist time? Just because my answer to limp's question was different than yours, doesn't make it incorrect. I'll say this again, if more contenders had sufficent cap space, they would try to get guys like Bryon Russell. As for the criticism of Jazz players, I would criticize them if the opportunity came up to do so, but I'm not going to criticize them just for the sake of criticizing them. Furthermore, if Russell had not played for the Jazz but I had followed his career as close as I have, I would still say he has a few productive years left. Notice I said the same thing about Mark Jackson and Anthony Mason, and Glen Rice could be on the list. Mitch Richmond from two years ago could be added to this list as well.

I think the biggest difference in our opinions and the cause for this argument is that you're eager to push older but still productive players into retirement but I'd like to have them around for a few more years even though they may not be able to do the same things they could do when they were younger.

[Jackal]

I think the biggest difference in our opinions and the cause for this argument is that you're eager to push older but still productive players into retirement but I'd like to have them around for a few more years even though they may not be able to do the same things they could do when they were younger.

I agree on this one, from what I've read, sounds like you want Russel to retire, or not play. I think him joining LA will be good for the young guys like George, Walton and Rush, He will teach them that Defense is important. Old guys have their own value, Russel might not be able to produce 15 points per game, but he has knowledge of the game which can be passed on to the new generation of players. My two cents, now you to continue discussing the matter, it's getting interesting .

[air gordon]

a few things that i think that need to be pointed out

*what is russell's contract?
*when figuring that out, what teams have enough cap to sign russell?
*evidence of GM's expressing interest in Russell
*russell's knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of the triangle offense is irrelevant. virtually all of the teams ran some variation of it. besides, the triangle ran in LA is different from the one ran in chicago
*more evidence of Russell's decline/ evidence that Russell can still be productive (define productive also)
*the respective teams of Glenn Rice and Anthony Mason are trying to buyout their respective contracts

game on. btw, robby, what's going on with the fantasy bball league?

[mp3]

It would be a nice pick up for the lakers but imo Russell is only there for trianing camp... he could help the team alot if he played the way he did with the jazz but those days are gone as he proved with the wizards last year. but look for Bryon to sign with another team as the season gets started... he still has alot to offer a young team.

[Robby]

game on. btw, robby, what's going on with the fantasy bball league?

I'm not sure. I guess if all the people who signed up pm me thier names and yahoo ids, I'll start the league up.

[Bourbon]

Stop trying to generalize my point. Think about it, for the two weeks that the Jazz played the Bulls in the Finals each year, all Russell saw was the triangle and all of it's nuances. That's nearly a month of extensive studying of the triangle offense. But that by no means implies that he knows about the triangle as much as Pargo or Rush, but he does know the triangle a little bit more than you give him credit for.

If you look to the context of my response, it wasn't my place to give him credit. I was simply asking you to clarify your point, which, at the time, seemed like quite the stretch.

I do read all the posts carefully and fully respond to them unlike you who "selectively" read and respond to posts according to your convenience.

The number of posts I make doesn't depreciate the level at which I read the posts of others. (N)

No, but Phil Jackson is at least talking about Russell adjusting to LA which means that Russell has a better shot at making the team than the players you mentioned.

Sure, Russell has a better shot at making the team than the Koko Archibong's in training camp, but was that really in question?

How did I answer incorrectly the fist time? Just because my answer to limp's question was different than yours, doesn't make it incorrect.

In this case, it does. You said other teams just weren't looking at Jackson, much in the same as they weren't looking at Russell. In reality, Jackson could've found work instantly, but waited for a contending team to call him. SI.com now projects Jackson to start at the three in Houston, while Bryon Russell probably won't get past the L.A. practice squad. So because your comparison between JJ and Russell is incorrect, then so is your answer.

I think the biggest difference in our opinions and the cause for this argument is that you're eager to push older but still productive players into retirement but I'd like to have them around for a few more years even though they may not be able to do the same things they could do when they were younger.

It's funny you earlier asked me to "stop generalizing your point." I mean, isn't this a blatant generalization? Look, if Player X is still productive and also packs a light salary, then Player X will therefore carry high demand, right? So ... Because 1) Russell's asking price is low, 2) Nearly every NBA team is consequently able to sign him, 3) There's been little interest in Russell, despite the aforementioned "bargain", and 4) Russell's statistics have dropped egregiously over the past three years, I just don't see him as a hot commodity. It's not even a matter of "pushing him into retirement" like you said; I could care less what he does. I just don't think he's as good as you do. Anyway, after "selectively" participating in this thread "according to my conveniece," I'm almost entirely sold on two things, with my only skepticism emanating from the latter: 1) you significantly overrate Russell, presumably because of his Jazz ties, and 2) he might even crack the opening night roster. (Not because of any Russell Rejuventation, though, but because he might actually be better than that Pargo guy.)