McKie providing a solid foundation for youngsters

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Money wasn?t just tight, it was nonexistent. When a person grows up in poverty, the warranty never expires on the feeling of frustration and despair, regardless of the millions earned later in life. </div>

Source

I guess McKie is useful after all.

 

?If people in positions of power understand what it is like to be poor, the needs of the people who can?t fight for themselves would be met"

Great quote, good man.

 

hes like what the 100th nba player to do that?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting philip2136:</div><div class="quote_post">hes like what the 100th nba player to do that?</div>
Wow. Show some respect. Geez

 

At least the Lakers are getting something out of him instead of nothing at all. Im glad that he has become useful.

 

The Lakers have a rebuliding plan, Aaron Mckie is a part of that plan. The Lakers will be a dynasty again. All hail the purple and gold.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Super_Sixer_Fan:</div><div class="quote_post">The Lakers have a rebuliding plan, Aaron Mckie is a part of that plan. The Lakers will be a dynasty again. All hail the purple and gold.</div>

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Super_Sixer_Fan:</div><div class="quote_post">The Lakers have a rebuliding plan, Aaron Mckie is a part of that plan. The Lakers will be a dynasty again. All hail the purple and gold.</div>

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Super_Sixer_Fan:</div><div class="quote_post">The Lakers have a rebuliding plan, Aaron Mckie is a part of that plan. The Lakers will be a dynasty again. All hail the purple and gold.</div>

Hey look at it this way. Atleast the Lakers have a plan. Rumors out of 76ers land has it that the owner of Wachovia Center wants to rebuild its arena. Only this time, it will be done during a 76ers game.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Super_Sixer_Fan:</div><div class="quote_post">The Lakers have a rebuliding plan, Aaron Mckie is a part of that plan. The Lakers will be a dynasty again. All hail the purple and gold.</div>

I think he was joking...

 

I really feel like Mckie has gotten unfair criticism from some Laker fans on this web site. While it is true, he contributed nothing, on the court, to the Lakers this past season. His veteran leadership is a huge asset to any team especially one with so much youth, like the Lakers. You also cannot blame the guy for being injured. He does the best he can to keep his body in top condition, he returns to Philadelphia every summer to work out at Temple. However, at his age injuries are bound to take place. I expect him to have a much better season this year.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Best Kept Secret:</div><div class="quote_post">I really feel like Mckie has gotten unfair criticism from some Laker fans on this web site. While it is true, he contributed nothing, on the court, to the Lakers this past season. His veteran leadership is a huge asset to any team especially one with so much youth, like the Lakers. You also cannot blame the guy for being injured. He does the best he can to keep his body in top condition, he returns to Philadelphia every summer to work out at Temple. However, at his age injuries are bound to take place. I expect him to have a much better season this year.</div>
Currently, our point guards are Smush, Shammond, and Farmar. I doubt Mckie will get playing time at all this season. I agree with the fact that Mckie has been unfairly criticized. Sure, he did not produce last season, but it wasn't his fault on signing the contract. Somebody obviously didn't do their research (Mitch). Considering I am also a Sixer fan, I can tell you that Mckie was basically done two seasons ago. The fact that Mitch signed Mckie with the MLE still baffles me. With that being said, I think it would be of best interest for Mckie to just call it quits. That way, he can move on to the latter part of his life. He gets more time to relax, be with family, and just look back at his good NBA career. It also frees up a roster spot for the Lakers, which we can use to sign Profit or Pinnock

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Brian:</div><div class="quote_post">Currently, our point guards are Smush, Shammond, and Farmar. I doubt Mckie will get playing time at all this season. I agree with the fact that Mckie has been unfairly criticized. Sure, he did not produce last season, but it wasn't his fault on signing the contract. Somebody obviously didn't do their research (Mitch). Considering I am also a Sixer fan, I can tell you that Mckie was basically done two seasons ago. The fact that Mitch signed Mckie with the MLE still baffles me. With that being said, I think it would be of best interest for Mckie to just call it quits. That way, he can move on to the latter part of his life. He gets more time to relax, be with family, and just look back at his good NBA career. It also frees up a roster spot for the Lakers, which we can use to sign Profit or Pinnock</div>
I disagree once again. Although, Mckie struggled in his final season with the 76ers, averaging only 2.2 points a game, it was mostly due to injury and reduced minutes. The season prior to that in which he averaged about 28 minutes a game he posted up a respectable nine points a night in a reserve role.

I also disagree that the Lakers would be better served signing a younger player as opposed to keeping Mckie on the roster. Whatever youngster the Lakers were to bring in at this point likely would not see much playing time due to depth at the position and the fact that they would have to learn what many consider the most difficult offense in basketball.

So it comes down to having a veteran on the bench who can provide leadership in the locker room, or having a youngster who would likely see no time and be in the NBDL. The Lakers need veteran leadership the fact that no one in their starting lineup is over 30 years old reasserts that fact. Not only that, but even if he retired the Lakers would still have to pay his contract.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Best Kept Secret:</div><div class="quote_post">I disagree once again. Although, Mckie struggled in his final season with the 76ers, averaging only 2.2 points a game, it was mostly due to injury and reduced minutes. The season prior to that in which he averaged about 28 minutes a game he posted up a respectable nine points a night in a reserve role.

I also disagree that the Lakers would be better served signing a younger player as opposed to keeping Mckie on the roster. Whatever youngster the Lakers were to bring in at this point likely would not see much playing time due to depth at the position and the fact that they would have to learn what many consider the most difficult offense in basketball.

So it comes down to having a veteran on the bench who can provide leadership in the locker room, or having a youngster who would likely see no time and be in the NBDL. The Lakers need veteran leadership the fact that no one in their starting lineup is over 30 years old reasserts that fact. Not only that, but even if he retired the Lakers would still have to pay his contract.</div>
I understand what you are saying. Make no mistake, I know what type of leadership Mckie brings to the team, and I respect that. But the guy just doesn't have much left. In the limited minutes he played last season, he was slow, hesitated on shots, and didn't play the type of defense Mckie was known for. If we release Mckie, like I said, we would be able to free up an open roster spot. With that roster spot, we can resign Laron Profit, who is a veteran in the league, and still is a FA. Profit will produce immediately when coming off the bench. He showed last season that he is a player, and filled in well for Kobe, and led our 2nd unit. If we resign Profit, we can get more rest for Kobe, which he will need later for the playoffs. We also get more depth and another contributor on our squad.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Brian:</div><div class="quote_post">I understand what you are saying. Make no mistake, I know what type of leadership Mckie brings to the team, and I respect that. But the guy just doesn't have much left. In the limited minutes he played last season, he was slow, hesitated on shots, and didn't play the type of defense Mckie was known for. If we release Mckie, like I said, we would be able to free up an open roster spot. With that roster spot, we can resign Laron Profit, who is a veteran in the league, and still is a FA. Profit will produce immediately when coming off the bench. He showed last season that he is a player, and filled in well for Kobe, and led our 2nd unit. If we resign Profit, we can get more rest for Kobe, which he will need later for the playoffs. We also get more depth and another contributor on our squad.</div>
The problem lies there. You can?t simply release Mckie to open up a roster spot. If you do that, you are basically admitting that you threw away that entire MLE when you brought him in. By having him on the roster at least, he provides leadership to a young team, and some type of production when he is on the court. You stated that last year when he saw limited playing time he was slow and ineffective. Perhaps that was due to the fact his body was not conditioned well do to all the time he spent away from basketball with the injuries.

Either way the Lakers would be better served keeping him on the roster and seeing how he comes back this season. I still believe Mckie has a lot left in the tank. He can be a viable backup for Kobe when the Lakers choose to sit Bryant. He still has the ability to make the open jumper and stretch the defense. Either way you look at it when your as young as the Lakers are you are better served having a veteran playing those garbage minutes and providing leadership. As opposed to having a player who has yet to play in the league, or has only played one season.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Best Kept Secret:</div><div class="quote_post">The problem lies there. You can’t simply release Mckie to open up a roster spot. If you do that, you are basically admitting that you threw away that entire MLE when you brought him in. By having him on the roster at least, he provides leadership to a young team, and some type of production when he is on the court. You stated that last year when he saw limited playing time he was slow and ineffective. Perhaps that was due to the fact his body was not conditioned well do to all the time he spent away from basketball with the injuries.

Either way the Lakers would be better served keeping him on the roster and seeing how he comes back this season. I still believe Mckie has a lot left in the tank. He can be a viable backup for Kobe when the Lakers choose to sit Bryant. He still has the ability to make the open jumper and stretch the defense. Either way you look at it when your as young as the Lakers are you are better served having a veteran playing those garbage minutes and providing leadership. As opposed to having a player who has yet to play in the league, or has only played one season.</div>

How many times have you seen Mckie play last season BKS? I have seen every Laker game, and I can tell you that the guy is done. He doesn't have much left in the tank. Ask anybody who has watched Mckie play last season, and they will tell you he is done. This isn't the old Mckie of the 01 season. This isn't the Mckie that we all want to remember from the Sixers. I guess you can blame his play on the injuries, but that isn't really saying much. The guy hasn't been able to keep himself healthy at all for the last couple of seasons. Mckie is old, his body is breaking down, and the guy just can't keep up with the other point guards on defense. I say release Mckie and bring in Laron Profit, who has proven he can play. Plus, Profit isn't a rookie, or a 1 seasoned player, he is a 29 year old vet that can provide us offense off the bench. Considering we are not a very deep team, the addition of Profit can do wonders.

Also, you are saying that by releasing McKie, we will basically be saying we just wasted our MLE. Well, everyone knows that already. We should not have used the MLE on McKie, and two seasons ago we shouldnt have used the MLE on Divac.

 

I never thought that A McKie article would start an argument.

<font color=""SeaGreen""><font color=""Green"">Off-Topic: Brian, The Eagles have released Detmer (prayers answered) and alligator hands Todd Pinkston. And we brought back A.J Feeley. </font></font>

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Brian:</div><div class="quote_post">How many times have you seen Mckie play last season BKS? I have seen every Laker game, and I can tell you that the guy is done. He doesn't have much left in the tank. Ask anybody who has watched Mckie play last season, and they will tell you he is done. This isn't the old Mckie of the 01 season. This isn't the Mckie that we all want to remember from the Sixers. I guess you can blame his play on the injuries, but that isn't really saying much. The guy hasn't been able to keep himself healthy at all for the last couple of seasons. Mckie is old, his body is breaking down, and the guy just can't keep up with the other point guards on defense. I say release Mckie and bring in Laron Profit, who has proven he can play. Plus, Profit isn't a rookie, or a 1 seasoned player, he is a 29 year old vet that can provide us offense off the bench. Considering we are not a very deep team, the addition of Profit can do wonders.

Also, you are saying that by releasing McKie, we will basically be saying we just wasted our MLE. Well, everyone knows that already. We should not have used the MLE on McKie, and two seasons ago we shouldnt have used the MLE on Divac.</div>
Once again I am not dening the fact that mckie did not produce last year. If you think that is my argument you need to re-read the posts. However, there are respoable excuses for why he was not a productive bench player for the Lakers last season. Of course, it?s not the same Mckie from 2001 if it was he would be the sixth man of the year. With that said, he had an injury whittled season last year you have to see how he comes back from that. If you bring in Pinnock right now like your user title suggests he will not see any time due to not knowing the offense, nor will he provide any leadership for the team. With Mckie you already have someone who knows the offense and has been through the playoff battles. At this point the Lakers due not need more depth in their back court in my opinion, they need leadership. Kobe Bryant will play 35-40 minutes a night, worst-case scenario. Mckie can be a solid option to back him up.

Just to clarify what I am saying, because you seem to think I am saying Mckie is still a sixth man of the year candidate. What I am getting at is that whatever player who backs up Kobe Bryant will not see much playing time. There for you will be better served having a veteran coming off the bench then an unproven rookie or a player who has been in the league one season. You are going to have to pay him any how so why not try to get the most out of your investment? He was injured last season of course he was going to look slow. He has been working out at temple regularly during this off-season and looks like he is in great shape. Let?s see how he looks when he comes back.


BTW: I watched somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-50 Lakers games last season to answer your question. Considering Mckie only played in 19 of the 82 regular season games due to injury. I don?t think you saw much more than I did, if any more games with Mckie at all.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Best Kept Secret:</div><div class="quote_post">Once again I am not dening the fact that mckie did not produce last year. If you think that is my argument you need to re-read the posts. However, there are respoable excuses for why he was not a productive bench player for the Lakers last season. Of course, it?s not the same Mckie from 2001 if it was he would be the sixth man of the year. With that said, he had an injury whittled season last year you have to see how he comes back from that. If you bring in Pinnock right now like your user title suggests he will not see any time due to not knowing the offense, nor will he provide any leadership for the team. With Mckie you already have someone who knows the offense and has been through the playoff battles. At this point the Lakers due not need more depth in their back court in my opinion, they need leadership. Kobe Bryant will play 35-40 minutes a night, worst-case scenario. Mckie can be a solid option to back him up.

Just to clarify what I am saying, because you seem to think I am saying Mckie is still a sixth man of the year candidate. What I am getting at is that whatever player who backs up Kobe Bryant will not see much playing time. There for you will be better served having a veteran coming off the bench then an unproven rookie or a player who has been in the league one season. You are going to have to pay him any how so why not try to get the most out of your investment? He was injured last season of course he was going to look slow. He has been working out at temple regularly during this off-season and looks like he is in great shape. Let?s see how he looks when he comes back.


BTW: I watched somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-50 Lakers games last season to answer your question. Considering Mckie only played in 19 of the 82 regular season games due to injury. I don?t think you saw much more than I did, if any more games with Mckie at all.</div>
You saw 40-50 Laker games in PA? Anyways, back to the topic, if you did see 40-50 Lakers games last season, and then more than likely you would have seen Laron Profit play. Like I said before, Laron Profit showed last season that he was a valuable player coming off the bench. He was the leader of the second unit before his big injury. You fail to acknowledge that I am saying if we drop Mckie, then we should pick up Laron Profit. Mckie has been getting injured for the last couple of seasons, and considering he is getting older, it won't get any better. Mckie provides leadership to our team, I understand that. But considering how weak our bench is, I dont see the benefits of keeping a player that wont produce, when instead we can bring in someone like Laron Profit, who will immediately strenghten our bench, and will actually produce in games. I would have no problems keeping Mckie on our roster if we had more depth. But this team isnt very deep, and the talent we have on our second string just wont get the job done. Again, this is just my opinion, but I feel it would be a better move to get someone on our roster that will actually produce in games.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Brian:</div><div class="quote_post">You saw 40-50 Laker games in PA? Anyways, back to the topic, if you did see 40-50 Lakers games last season, and then more than likely you would have seen Laron Profit play. Like I said before, Laron Profit showed last season that he was a valuable player coming off the bench. He was the leader of the second unit before his big injury. You fail to acknowledge that I am saying if we drop Mckie, then we should pick up Laron Profit. Mckie has been getting injured for the last couple of seasons, and considering he is getting older, it won't get any better. Mckie provides leadership to our team, I understand that. But considering how weak our bench is, I dont see the benefits of keeping a player that wont produce, when instead we can bring in someone like Laron Profit, who will immediately strenghten our bench, and will actually produce in games. I would have no problems keeping Mckie on our roster if we had more depth. But this team isnt very deep, and the talent we have on our second string just wont get the job done. Again, this is just my opinion, but I feel it would be a better move to get someone on our roster that will actually produce in games.</div>
Just to clear something up I live in the middle of nowhere in PA. I receive local games of the Bulls, Sixers, Knicks, and Nets there for I see all games the Lakers play against them as well as nationally televised games, and the occasional nights I spend at my friend?s house watching NBA television. Anyhow, back on topic like I already stated before whoever backs up Kobe Bryant will likely see no more than 8-18 minutes a night, unless the game is a complete blow out. There for it really does not matter who it is backing Kobe Bryant up as long as he can come in and contribute solid minutes.

You stated that Mckie looked slow and inefficient in one of your previous posts. Could that have been due to the lingering injury his body still had? On the other hand, possibly the fact that it was Mckie?s first year in the triangle offense? Maybe a combination of the two? Why not see if a healthy Mckie can contribute to this team. With the young core the Lakers already have why would they bring in another young inexperenienced player?

You stated you do not see the point of having a bench player who does not contribute. Once again in addition to what I have already stated above. You have to consider that there are many different ways to contribute to a team and sometimes they don?t always involve your performance on the court. Mckie?s leadership to a young Lakers squad is something they will need when they are coming down to the stretch run of the season. You say you recognize what Mckie brings in as far as leadership, but you constantly fail to acknowledge that in your posts thus far in this thread.

Also a player that has gone without mention thus far in this thread is Evans who the Lakers acquired from Detroit this off-season. Chances are he will see some time at the backup shooting guard role as well. Therefore, between him and Mckie you have two guys who are capable of coming in and playing 8-18 minutes a night in a backup role to Kobe. There is no need to bring in another shooting guard.

In conclusion if you bring in Pinnock at this point he will not see any time next season, nor will he bring leadership off the bench. You bring in Profit and waive Mckie you end up paying both Profit and Mckie for the next several years simply to play less than 15 minutes a night. No one really knows what Mckie can contribute to this Lakers team considering he was injured last season. You don?t waive a player you signed an off-season ago to the full MLE to open up a roster spot.