Real Deal

Just watched most of the game (fast-forwarding through free-throws and commercials, haha). I definitely don't like how easy it was for the Phoenix bigs to lose Gasol. I have no idea why that was happening, really...just the activity, I suppose. And Nash was like a surgeon out there, cutting up our defense left and right, sticking passes wherever he wanted...sucks to see it, but then again, Nash is a top 3-4 point in the NBA, and it should've been expected. That zone hurt. We have to learn to adjust DURING games, and not AFTER. I noticed Phil was resting Kobe a little longer after that huge first quarter, and we lost momentum and eventually struggled going into the half, one of the few things I really don't like about Phil (and him neglecting to call a timeout when he NEEDS to). At the end of the game, it was evident that the Lakers shot too many threes (Kobe did, and Odom should never attempt four per game) and we had way too many turnovers, both due to the zone. Have to adjust; there's nothing more to say.

In other words, nobody else has done what Kobe did, but so what? Put him in that category anyway. Shaq was Superman, Kobe was Batman. Take one out and try to replace them, and you don't get the dynasty. There should've been enough proof of that when Shaq and the Lakers were losing in the playoffs before Kobe took over the triangle. Again, it's the toughest thing in the world to ignore the facts. No "Robin" has even come remotely close to those numbers Kobe put up, and no "Robin" has ever had as many responsibilities as Bryant (the ones that you listed, plus him shooting more shots than O'Neal in two of those seasons).

Depends on who is guarding Ron, and how much pressure the Celtics put on Bryant. If they leave Ron open, there's a chance he'll light them up. I will admit I was somewhat wrong (because it was through that injury) when I said Ron wasn't able to hit wide-open shots. He does miss a few, but he was shooting 40% from three before he was injured, if I remember right, and he showed he could do it the other night as well.

Didn't watch the game (played basketball instead), and I'm glad I didn't. I told Terry I had a feeling we were going to drop this one, so I decided to go to the park...first Lakers game I've missed all season long. Can't really say much about it, though. Looking at the box scores, it looks like "Foul Collector" Andrew Bynum made a HUUUUGE impact, Ron and Odom chucked and bricked, and someone (Gasol or Odom) forgot that Amare is still an all-star player. Great game by Bryant -- 36/9/11 on over 50% FG. Gasol did pretty good offensively. All expected, though.

Riot has had his turned in since the 19th.

Wouldn't make sense for the Wolves to make that trade, because they can get much more out of Jefferson. And if Portland has given up on Oden, they do the deal...except, it's a shame they think that sticking Jefferson at center will turn them into a contender.

Right, so that presents the question: why would anyone trade for Arenas? There really is no reason to want that contract, or to want the player.

No team would be getting cap relief by trading for Arenas. 2010-11: $17.7 million 2011-12: $19.3 million 2012-13: $20.8 million (player option that Gilbert will exercise) 2013-14: $22.4 million That's Arenas' contract. I'm 100% sure no franchise will think, "Hey, we can shed $22.4 million off in 2014! That will definitely help us in our free agency." For one, no team will know their payroll situation four years ahead of time...and two, with talks of salary decreases, none of them know what that will do to future contracts, the salary cap itself, and just how ugly Arenas' contract will be compared to everyone else's. So...buying him out? Quite a chunk of change. I'd be surprised to hear that happened.

Ray Allen and Derek Fisher have the same knees. I guess you haven't seen what Fisher is doing to Nash. He's forcing him into turnovers (9 total in two games), limiting him to 13 and 11 points in the first two games, and also just five total free throw attempts. Nash is a better player than Ray...faster, smarter, and possibly a better shooter. Allen has also shot under 43% in the last two rounds he's played in (this current one, and Cleveland), so I'm not going to worry at all.

I'm not worried about our post scoring, mainly because the Magic have a guy who has maybe one or two total post moves in Dwight Howard (not much of an offensive game other than forcing his way to the rim and dunking). And...well, that's it. LA has Bynum, who is a much, much better offensive player in the post, and Gasol, who is easily one of the best in the NBA (both left and right-handed, excellent footwork, high IQ player). Sticking both in the post is different than having Howard and...? In their two meetings this year, Perkins vs. Bynum, Drew has scored 19 points, 11 boards in 33 minutes (first game) and 14 points, 9 boards in 27 minutes (second game). I'm not worried about Perkins on Drew. On the other hand, in the game where Gasol wasn't in foul trouble (Bynum's 14/9 game), he dropped 22 points and 7 boards. You say Boston has way too many scoring options. Pierce, Allen, Rondo, Garnett. The other two, Perkins and Wallace, aren't going to be threats throughout the entire series. They won't even get the opportunities like those others. The Lakers have Kobe, Gasol, Bynum, Odom...and by the way he was playing last series, it could be Ron (since his hand is healed). Basically, here's the key: Boston will eventually have to double Bryant. We won't need to double anyone. Where LeBron and Wade didn't have the extra scoring options, Kobe does...by about 3-4 teammates. That's a massive difference.

Added the rest of the questions. Come on guys, not much time left.

Boston shuts down teams that rely heavily on the jumpshot. They are holding teams to .319 shooting from downtown. Cleveland is a three-point shooting team, and so is Orlando. The Heat weren't contenders, so they were going to lose to Boston to begin with. 1) Los Angeles isn't a three-point shooting team. They get a ton of points in the paint using screen and rolls and simply dropping the ball down low and letting the bigs do work, something Cleveland and Orlando don't practice. 2) They have a perimeter player in Kobe that won't have to drive through Perkins and Garnett to get his points. It's Ray and Tony, or Kobe gets 30+ a game. 3) Instead of Vladimir Radmanovic defending Perkins and standing in the paint, it will be Andrew Bynum. 4) Instead of Luke Walton defending Paul Pierce, it will be Ron Artest. This team is a much different squad than the 2008 Lakers. You can remember 2008 all you want, but the fact is, if Kobe shuts down Rondo, the Celtics' offense is busted. He can do it.

Yeah, but I don't think Orlando can adjust. Live by the three, die by the three. If Boston doesn't allow them to shoot it, they are in big trouble...and that's what you're seeing. They are forcing guys like Rashard Lewis off the perimeter, and it's unfamiliar territory for him.

One of the mods already took care of it. I scrolled past it though...the damn problems with the topic marking (read/unread) is making life tougher on me right now. The board needs that minor upgrade whenever they come out with it.

The Kobe from the Lakers dynasty was no Gasol. Shaq and Kobe were the two best players in the NBA during that dynasty. Gasol isn't an MVP candidate. In fact, Shaq and Kobe have a combined two MVP awards because, quite frankly, they both bumped each other out of the voting most of the time. You couldn't replace any of them and still create a dynasty...that's how important those three were. Some would argue replacing Shaq with Duncan, some say Kobe with Carter, and some say Jackson with Popovich, but not three rings. Duncan wasn't as offensively dominant as Shaq, Carter was not the facilitator or defensive player Kobe was, and Popovich couldn't manage egos the way Phil did. The numbers still give it away. If Jordan, LeBron and others were their teams' best players in both the regular season and the playoffs, Kobe gets the same treatment by following the same criteria. Scottie Pippen is an outstanding player, but he wasn't putting up 28-29 PPG with MJ, and it was Jordan who made his teammates better as well. If anyone gets the short end of the stick, it's probably Phil...but I can't say those role players contributed to that dynasty as much as Shaq or Bryant, not even close. While they did hit big shots, they were almost all wide-open, and it was because both Kobe and Shaq were seeing doubles on the perimeter (#8) and in the paint (#34). Dominant duos of THAT caliber don't have clear leaders. Because Bryant ran the offense, he led the team as much as Shaq...and with the shots he took (more than O'Neal) and the defensive assignments he had, Shaq did the dirty work on the boards and was giving LA their 25-30 a night as well, and it mimicked what the Lakers had in the early 80's, with both Magic and Kareem (before Kareem really started to decline).

I really hate Matt Barnes.

Whiteside is a freak, but he has a lot of work ahead of him. And Ron Gant (baseball) was rumored to be at just 2% body fat at one point in his career. It's not really amazing to see an athlete at 5.5%. Typical athletes are usually 6-13% on that scale. Essential fat would be considered 2-4% body fat. Fit people are 14-17%.

Ouch.

No, it's not a sim league, it's a set offense. There are most definitely scoring options, prioritized in an offense. Phil Jackson and Gregg Popovich have mentioned scoring options quite a bit, most recently in a Phil Jackson interview talking about how Artest can be a legit 3rd or 4th option on the team. It's the same concept as a go-to guy in the fourth quarter. In fact, some coaches mark up ideal shot attempts per player, and use them on the whiteboard to tell their team who all needs to shoot, and who needs to limit their shots. Phil has done it with Chicago, and Brown did it with Detroit. Balanced offense makes for preserved energy and fluid scoring...some players can't take 20 shots per game, some can. And, regardless of that, I still don't see why it would be bad to take a potential 15/8 player (walking into his prime) with one of the first three picks.

Honestly, I stopped reading when they said LeBron, Wade and Bosh to the Heat.

Nah, you actually stated this: Five or six spectacular seasons? So those numbers I posted weren't spectacular enough? So, again, Shaq was the leader of the 2006 Heat? Kareem led the 1988 championship Laker team with 15 PPG and 6 RPG? He led the previous championship Lakers team with 18 PPG and 7 RPG? So why isn't he getting enough credit for the previous five years, when he was putting up nearly 30 in the playoffs, with much better rebounding and assist numbers? This is usually the problem with people that hate Kobe Bryant. They have to run straight to what Shaq did, yet they don't realize that Bryant has put up Jordan-like numbers in two of those championship runs. Kobe, Phil and Shaq were all equally important to the dynasty. Kobe ran the offense, took the most shots, and scored almost as much as O'Neal, all while defending the best player on the floor, while both Kobe and Shaq didn't do a damn thing until Phil took over the team and put Kobe in charge of the triangle. Facts are hard to work around. It's all right there.

17th? Bynum was the 10th pick in the 2005 draft. And again, I don't see how those aren't all-star numbers, if you're going to say he has the potential of being another Andrew Bynum. Minus injuries, and as a primary or second option, Bynum is most definitely an all-star player...not to mention he basically is an all-star as a third option on the Lakers. If a team was guaranteed that Cousins would be averaging 15 PPG and 8 RPG before he reached his prime, that would most definitely be worth a top three pick.

If you're saying he's going to be injured throughout his career, that's fine...but otherwise, you're basically saying that Cousins could provide a team with 15 PPG and 8 RPG, 30 MPG, 57% FG (around those numbers), and that's doing it as a third scoring option. I don't see the problem with that, at all. Cousins an all-star? That's a bad thing?

Shaq led the Heat in 2006? I guess I didn't watch basketball that season. You can talk all you want about Kobe not having a major hand in all three of those first rings, but the fact is, you still can't give me a "Robin" that put up anything CLOSE to 28.5 PPG, 5.9 RPG, 5.0 APG, 1.7 SPG in a season (second ring) or 25.2 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 5.5 APG, 1.2 SPG in the third championship ring...not to mention he took 20 FGA per game the second run, over 23 FGA the third, 46% FG or better both times. Or his playoff numbers... 2000-2001 Playoffs: 29.4 PPG, 7.3 RPG, 6.1 APG 2001-2002 Playoffs: 26.6 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 4.6 APG (and this was through injury, funny enough) Similar to LeBron's 25 PPG, 8 RPG, 8 APG when he got into the Finals in 2007, as the leader of his team. Similar to Jordan's 31 PPG, 6 RPG, 8 APG when he won his first championship, or his 31/5/4 in the fourth run, 31/8/5 in the fifth, 32/5/4 in the sixth. Sure looks to me like Kobe was much, much more than a second fiddle. Until you give me numbers proving otherwise, I guess there's nothing else to debate.

1) If, for some insane reason, the Wizards get the second pick as well...you take Turner. He's going to be a much better professional than Cousins. If not, I'll gladly eat crow with 95% of the other pro analysts that think the same as I do. Who cares where Arenas plays in the lineup at that point? When you have the chance to take two potential superstar players in the draft, you push the overpaid borderline all-star aside (not baiting, that's what he is when he's healthy, in my opinion). 2) Gilbert won't be traded. As I stated in another topic, he's getting paid until 2014 (if I recall correctly), and that contract is a HUGE chunk of change.