Mon Jan 27, 2003 9:54 pm
What about bringing in a 3-man like Jumaine Jones? He probably wouldn't come at too high a price, and the Cavs are trying to tank games so they'll probably take someone with a year left on their contract (if the Lakers have someone like that).
Danny Fortson is in a fucked situation in GS, a bit of a logjam, maybe look into a deal for him. Although the Warriors are pretty young, they could probably still be suckered into taking a draft pick or two and another player or two from LA. They took Dunleavy in the draft, so you know their franchise continues to make questionable decisions.
Danny Fortson is in a fucked situation in GS, a bit of a logjam, maybe look into a deal for him. Although the Warriors are pretty young, they could probably still be suckered into taking a draft pick or two and another player or two from LA. They took Dunleavy in the draft, so you know their franchise continues to make questionable decisions.
Tue Jan 28, 2003 1:29 am
you are definitely right about fortson he could do a lot job in there.
They need a rebounder and a all around SF.
They need a rebounder and a all around SF.
Tue Jan 28, 2003 4:50 am
They don't even need a true point guard, 'cause most of the time Kobe brings the ball down the court. Getting Odom is far fetched, but someone close to his playing style is a good bet. Fortson is good player, but I think he's is outsized in the West as a PF. Darius Miles can't find his niche in Cleveland (due to the emergence Ricky Davis), so he's a possibility (needs to work on jumpers though) Mike Dunleavy will be a great acquisition if it pulls through.
Also, do you guys think Penny can still lead the point? Penny and Kobe at the backcourt seems okay.
Also, do you guys think Penny can still lead the point? Penny and Kobe at the backcourt seems okay.
Tue Jan 28, 2003 10:08 am
That chinese guy, Wang, that guy is a center who shoots nice from the 3 line, maybe some kind of Perkins or Laimbeer, lol. The Lakers can give him some playing time. But about Penny, he gets injured too much, I'm not sure he is quick anymore to keep the showtime going, the Lakers need Van Exel, lol. I even would take Rice again.
Sun Feb 02, 2003 12:10 pm
Redbulls wrote:Possible trades. they can make:
1. Walker for Lorenzen Wright
2. Horry for Marcus Fizer
3. Fox + Madsen for Odom
Horry for Fizer????????? I know Bulls' coach is stupid like shit, but their GM won't never trade Fizer for a 35+ years old guy. Fizer was #4 pick, he can be a superstar, only Bull's coach doesn't realize it. If Horry for Fizer happened, then Reggie for Kobe will happen too.
Sun Feb 02, 2003 12:31 pm
From the way the Lakers have been playing lately, I don't think rebuilding is the right option at the moment. We all know they've had to rebound from a terrible start, and have had trouble here and there while they got back into form. The Lakers are currently 9th in the West, trailing the Rockets by 3.5 games.
In my opinion, the problem that faces the Lakers right now is not their own form, but the form of the eight teams above them in the West, most significantly Minnesota, Phoenix and Houston, the 6th, 7th and 8th seeds respectively. The Lakers are in good position to overtake any of those three teams, provided they continue to win and those teams crumble.
However, provided those three teams maintain their current distance from the Lakers, Los Angeles will not qualify for the playoffs - even with a winning record. At their current pace, I don't see the Lakers dropping lower again, but it will be the success of the three lowest seeds in the West that will determine the fate of the Lakers this season.
In my opinion, the problem that faces the Lakers right now is not their own form, but the form of the eight teams above them in the West, most significantly Minnesota, Phoenix and Houston, the 6th, 7th and 8th seeds respectively. The Lakers are in good position to overtake any of those three teams, provided they continue to win and those teams crumble.
However, provided those three teams maintain their current distance from the Lakers, Los Angeles will not qualify for the playoffs - even with a winning record. At their current pace, I don't see the Lakers dropping lower again, but it will be the success of the three lowest seeds in the West that will determine the fate of the Lakers this season.
Sun Feb 02, 2003 2:46 pm
It's not that the Lakers have to rebuild, it's just that they need some offense. I would get to the market and bring back Ceballos, maybe he's not the great one he was bfore but sure can score. Regarding the the playoffs, I know Houston is stronger than Minnesota but Garnett can carry the Wolves to keep their place, Phoenix has been playing bad lately. I think if the Mavs keep their first place overall, will be a big upset for them to have the Lakers in the 8th Spot in a 5 game series, I bet the Lakers would take that for sure.
Mon Feb 03, 2003 8:07 am
Fox and Madsen for Odom? Walker for Wright? Mate, this isn't Live 2000
Tue Feb 04, 2003 4:19 am
Are you people serious? Get rid of Rick Fox, Brian Shaw and Robert Horry?
Get Real... Fox, Shaw, & Horry are the best defenders you could ask for. Yes, most of the times they don't play well offensively. but they are veterans and clutch players and I for one wouldn't trade them for anything.
why won't you all say get rid of Karrem Rush or something?
If Robert Horry, was a consistent scorer rather than a clutch, or even both... the lakers would be great.
But no matter people say about the lakers, they are still the team to beat... not Dallas, not Sacramento. The Lakers are the team to beat!
I'm not a laker fan, even though i'm a Kobe fan. For 3years I've rooted against them, and they have proven to me how great they are; and it always reminds me: "to never under estimate the heart of a champion"
they won 3 straight championshps and people still don't give them their props. everyone is saying they won't win this... I'm a proud Dallas Maverick fan, and as good as they are, I know Dallas, can't beat the lakers in a playoff series. But the Kings can; but I don't think they will win the championship.
And nobody seems to be talking about they Utah Jazz, they have beaten all the big teams on their home court this season including Dallas & Sacramento. Don't underestimate the Jazz either. I think they deserve some props!
Makaveli the don.
Get Real... Fox, Shaw, & Horry are the best defenders you could ask for. Yes, most of the times they don't play well offensively. but they are veterans and clutch players and I for one wouldn't trade them for anything.
why won't you all say get rid of Karrem Rush or something?
If Robert Horry, was a consistent scorer rather than a clutch, or even both... the lakers would be great.
But no matter people say about the lakers, they are still the team to beat... not Dallas, not Sacramento. The Lakers are the team to beat!
I'm not a laker fan, even though i'm a Kobe fan. For 3years I've rooted against them, and they have proven to me how great they are; and it always reminds me: "to never under estimate the heart of a champion"
they won 3 straight championshps and people still don't give them their props. everyone is saying they won't win this... I'm a proud Dallas Maverick fan, and as good as they are, I know Dallas, can't beat the lakers in a playoff series. But the Kings can; but I don't think they will win the championship.
And nobody seems to be talking about they Utah Jazz, they have beaten all the big teams on their home court this season including Dallas & Sacramento. Don't underestimate the Jazz either. I think they deserve some props!
Makaveli the don.
Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:29 am
We don't say let's get rid of Kareem Rush cause that's the new & young leg of the team, we are saying let's get rid of Shaw & Fox specifically, I would keep Horry just for respect to what he did last year.
Wed Feb 05, 2003 8:53 pm
Fox, Shaw, & Horry are the best defenders you could ask for.
Not really. I'd rather Ben Wallace, Ron Artest and GP.
why won't you all say get rid of Karrem Rush or something?
Because he is a rookie and has a lot of potential. He can shoot the lights out and has Kobe to teach him everything.
If Robert Horry, was a consistent scorer rather than a clutch, or even both... the lakers would be great.
Getting rid of his injuries would help too. They have to keep him around due to respect, but he won't play many more years.
I would get to the market and bring back Ceballos
Do you think he would give up his commitments to the "great" Harlem Globetrotters? Ceballos has pretty much had his day. I think the Lakers should pick up some decent free agents keen for a championship.
Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:20 pm
Meanwhile, the Lakers have finally reached .500, and currently have the longest winning streak in the league, while the Rockets lost again. Looks they might be able to afford to put off that rebuilding plan for at least a few months.
Thu Feb 06, 2003 8:59 am
"you are definitely right about fortson he could do a lot job in there. "
Except for the fact that Shaq hates him.
Here's a trade that would ensure a 4th ring for the Lakers:
Medvedenko+ Shaw+ Murray+ Madsen for MJ & T Lue
You may laugh but it's true! Even with all those "players" I still think the Wizards would get the short end of the stick !
Except for the fact that Shaq hates him.
Here's a trade that would ensure a 4th ring for the Lakers:
Medvedenko+ Shaw+ Murray+ Madsen for MJ & T Lue
You may laugh but it's true! Even with all those "players" I still think the Wizards would get the short end of the stick !
Thu Feb 06, 2003 10:39 am
IMO the Lakers shouldn't trade anybody now... At least till the end of the playoffs.
I watched the Lakers/Pacers game yesterday and I think they are playing better... Fox, Walker and Fisher aren't killing on O, but they are above average on D, like someone said earlier...
Plus, they are good role players, along with Horry, George and Rush...
But I think they should add some players next season... They are getting old.
I watched the Lakers/Pacers game yesterday and I think they are playing better... Fox, Walker and Fisher aren't killing on O, but they are above average on D, like someone said earlier...
Plus, they are good role players, along with Horry, George and Rush...
But I think they should add some players next season... They are getting old.
Thu Feb 06, 2003 3:24 pm
But I think they should add some players next season... They are getting old.
Which leads me to draw comparisons to the Bulls teams of the 90s. I believe the Lakers have lost a step, as the Bulls did after 1993, and I'll predict now that LA will not win their fourth straight title. Their team is not as strong as the previous title runs, and their opponents have gained strength and confidence. It seems as though most of their Western rivals are confident, but not over confident - the Lakers are of course the defending champions (and starting to play good basketball again).
Because of this, I believe the Lakers, like the Bulls, will not yield a fourth straight championship, which will be followed up by retooling in the offseason (a la Chicago acquiring Dennis Rodman in 1995) and a better 2003/2004 season.
Even if the Lakers do win the title this season, they should probably look to make some changes. Although Chicago had success with an older roster and without making significant changes to their roster in three seasons, the question begs how many titles can you squeeze out of a team. The Celtics of the 60s would answer 11, including 8 consecutive, but that's a different team and a different era. But the answer to that question for the Lakers can wait until the offseason, especially now they are breathing down Houston's neck for the 8th spot in the West.
Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:53 pm
Well, Andrew, it's not like the Lakers are going into the playoffs without Kobe Bryant or without Shaquille O'neal.
Despite what many might say, Michael Jordan's retirement certainly had a great impact on the Chicago Bulls not winning the next championship. When you lose a great a player as Michael Jordan, who arguably led the team to the 3 previous titles, then you've also lost a significant amount identity and potency. You could make the argument that the Bulls would have completed the four-peat had Michael Jordan retired.
Yes, the Lakers have become less dominant, but the loss comes as a result of antipathy, fatigue, age.... not because one of their two star players retired.
Despite what many might say, Michael Jordan's retirement certainly had a great impact on the Chicago Bulls not winning the next championship. When you lose a great a player as Michael Jordan, who arguably led the team to the 3 previous titles, then you've also lost a significant amount identity and potency. You could make the argument that the Bulls would have completed the four-peat had Michael Jordan retired.
Yes, the Lakers have become less dominant, but the loss comes as a result of antipathy, fatigue, age.... not because one of their two star players retired.
Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:16 pm
I'm a Bulls fan and a Michael Jordan fan, so you'll get no argument that his first retirement did contribute to the Bulls' failure to win their fourth straight championship. 
It's a detail I neglected to address in my post - the reasons for a less dominating run at a fourth straight title are different, but with Michael Jordan's return in 1995, the Bulls were much like this season's Lakers - a team that had won three straight titles but were not seen as having as great a chance at winning the title. The 94/95 Bulls were also a year removed their last title while the Lakers are still the defending champions, but the Bulls made some changes and came out stronger in 95/96. I believe the Lakers, at their current pace, will not make the NBA Finals, and should therefore retool and come out a stronger team in 03/04.
But yes, the Lakers' reasons for not being among the league's top teams (at least in the standings) is the result of an early injury to Shaq, fatigue, disputes over public criticism by both Shaq and Kobe, and to an extent, age and possibly even boredom. Not the same as the retirement of a star player and leading scorer, but I believe the results will be the same.
It's a detail I neglected to address in my post - the reasons for a less dominating run at a fourth straight title are different, but with Michael Jordan's return in 1995, the Bulls were much like this season's Lakers - a team that had won three straight titles but were not seen as having as great a chance at winning the title. The 94/95 Bulls were also a year removed their last title while the Lakers are still the defending champions, but the Bulls made some changes and came out stronger in 95/96. I believe the Lakers, at their current pace, will not make the NBA Finals, and should therefore retool and come out a stronger team in 03/04.
But yes, the Lakers' reasons for not being among the league's top teams (at least in the standings) is the result of an early injury to Shaq, fatigue, disputes over public criticism by both Shaq and Kobe, and to an extent, age and possibly even boredom. Not the same as the retirement of a star player and leading scorer, but I believe the results will be the same.