There is a difference. When Malone and Payton went to LA, they were really on the low end of their career. Both of the players mentioned here, are still producing very well. Yes they will have to reduce their shots. But they can on Boston, that team shares the ball pretty well. It would take a total knucklehead to not buy in when you have a shot at a ring, and the team leadership in place would probably knock them in line.
That actually worked pretty well for the Lakers, though. A six game improvement from the previous season and an appearance in the Finals. I bet Boston would love either of those results... Ed O.
I don't know. KG is not the player he was even 2 years ago, he doesn't care about shots. Butler and Jamison would be giddy getting out of Washington and having a chance to play for a ring. Jamison would be their super-sub, playing starter's minutes backing up the 3 and 4 (where he would get a lot of minutes with them saving KG's knees, playing him 25-30 minutes at most). Sheed plays backup center for 16 minutes, which suits his lazy, out-of-shape, 3-launching ass these days. As much as I would love this to blow up in their faces, I'm just not sure.
Aaah I see your logic. Because another team fucked up as well, it makes KP correct to do what he did. I also disagree on Miller. I would have never signed him. I think it was much more important to take the talent we had, and find out if it could play or not, so we could make the right decisions about whether to deal or not. You do that by letting the talent you have, play, finding out how good they are, and making your decision process easier.
And a big part of the Lakers' downfall in the Finals was Malone being hurt and varyingly unable to play or unable to play effectively. Malone was one of the biggest reasons that the Lakers got past the Wolves in the WCF.
Agreed on all counts. I'm not saying KP is perfect and shouldn't be criticized, but the bashing since last year's trade deadline has gotten ridiculous.
I'm afraid not. It's evidence that expiring contracts aren't the gold mines you fondly imagine they are. Rarely, they are. Usually, they do not bring back impact players. It's the same mistake most fans make about cap space. They think "Clear lots of cap space and sign a bunch of superstars!" Except that impact players rarely switch teams in free agency. Once in a while it happens, but it's hardly incompetence when a team can't get one. The same goes for acquiring impact players via expiring contracts. Hilarious. "Pritchard should have acquired a veteran for RLEC. He's stupid for not doing so!" "You let the players you have play and see how good they are, you do not sign a veteran. Pritchard is stupid for having done so!" So: *Acquiring a veteran by trading an expiring contract = good. Shows you want to win. *Acquiring a veteran using the cap space from letting a contract expire = bad. Shows you're not committed to finding out how good your current players are. Makes a lot of sense.
Yeah, I do. In spite of the huge distraction of Kobe's rape trial, Malone missing half the season and playing hurt in the finals (before finally sitting out game 5), Shaq and Kobe missing 17 and 15 regular season games, they still made it to the NBA finals by upsetting the defending champion Spurs and the higher seeded Timberwolves in spite of not have HCA in either series. If Malone would have been healthy during the finals, that sereis would have been a lot closer. Sharing the ball wasn't the problem with that team. Injuries and the huge distraction of Kobe's trial were. BNM
