I don't know if he's just going to have to take a while to mentally get settled with the fact that's he's finally playing on the Knicks, but his shots are terrible, his drives look like Uncle Ron, his defense is 4 steps or, should I say shuffles, too slow (he doesn't step man, he shuffles), and worst of all he's missing the rotation and as Clyde says "not seeing the ball and seeing his man". When he comes in, the flow stops, bricks are chucked, and the momentum changes. Does he just need more time, or is he washed up?
On the other hand, KMart gets involved in every play defensively, even if a step too slow. I LOVE that he gives hard fouls when they are needed to send a message, especially since those fouls are usually weak side help D that no other Knick provides down low right now. He's our only defensive enforcer and needs to be in there in all clutch situations IMO.
Big ups to Bargs. Very impressed again.
Is he not allowed to have a bad game or two. He has been playing surprisingly well. He is a step slow but his D has been good at times.
yellowboy90 wrote:Is he not allowed to have a bad game or two. He has been playing surprisingly well. He is a step slow but his D has been good at times.
It's more like a bad game or 5 at this point man.
His shot selection has been horrible. He's not swishin' like he was in preseason, so he needs to do more dishin'. Defensively, he's better against power/combo forward types at this point in his career.
BigDaddyG wrote:His shot selection has been horrible. He's not swishin' like he was in preseason, so he needs to do more dishin'. Defensively, he's better against power/combo forward types at this point in his career.
Absolutely, anyone with half a step is gliding past him.
The Lakers didn't want to pay him $7.7 mil (basically slightly more than the average player). That was money they couldn't use on anyone else anyway. It's not like they were clearing cap space and it's not like they're known for being cheapskates.
Definitely chasing the ball, a losing his man, twice yesterday he ran to the paint to help on a lin lay up, leaving his man, lin dished it out, and instead of MWP going back to cover his man behind the baseline 3, the ball gets swung around the perimeter ends up with his man shooting a wide open base line 3.
I understand him trying to prevent a layup, but if your going to gamble, you should be communicating with your teammates to rotate.
Bonn1997 wrote:The Lakers didn't want to pay him $7.7 mil (basically slightly more than the average player). That was money they couldn't use on anyone else anyway. It's not like they were clearing cap space and it's not like they're known for being cheapskates.
Luxury Tax. Without Kobe they don't make playoffs (or don't go far if they make 7/8th seed). So it was pointless.
martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:The Lakers didn't want to pay him $7.7 mil (basically slightly more than the average player). That was money they couldn't use on anyone else anyway. It's not like they were clearing cap space and it's not like they're known for being cheapskates.
Luxury Tax. Without Kobe they don't make playoffs (or don't go far if they make 7/8th seed). So it was pointless.
plus: who's "they"? Ownership is different in LA. The complaints about the new ownership are the same complaints Bonn has about the Yankees new ownership
martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:The Lakers didn't want to pay him $7.7 mil (basically slightly more than the average player). That was money they couldn't use on anyone else anyway. It's not like they were clearing cap space and it's not like they're known for being cheapskates.
Luxury Tax. Without Kobe they don't make playoffs (or don't go far if they make 7/8th seed). So it was pointless.
Then a much older Steve Nash with almost triple the remaining salary is gonna kill them with the luxury tax!
JohnStarksFan wrote:I don't know if he's just going to have to take a while to mentally get settled with the fact that's he's finally playing on the Knicks, but his shots are terrible, his drives look like Uncle Ron, his defense is 4 steps or, should I say shuffles, too slow (he doesn't step man, he shuffles), and worst of all he's missing the rotation and as Clyde says "not seeing the ball and seeing his man". When he comes in, the flow stops, bricks are chucked, and the momentum changes. Does he just need more time, or is he washed up? On the other hand, KMart gets involved in every play defensively, even if a step too slow. I LOVE that he gives hard fouls when they are needed to send a message, especially since those fouls are usually weak side help D that no other Knick provides down low right now. He's our only defensive enforcer and needs to be in there in all clutch situations IMO.
Big ups to Bargs. Very impressed again.
Artest is past his prime but still serviceable and useful at times. A sub these days added at minimal cost and his contributions will yo yo depending on matchups . Im more concerned about the dead weight of Chris Smith, no logical reason why a useful piece like Diogu or another isnt sitting at end of bench drawing minimum. C Smith is a mockery
JohnStarksFan wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:Is he not allowed to have a bad game or two. He has been playing surprisingly well. He is a step slow but his D has been good at times.
It's more like a bad game or 5 at this point man.
Eh? What games have you been watching? He's been pretty good for us so far. MWP is what he is- he gets over enthused on the offensive end, and he thinks he's a better scorer than he is. Ends up chucking and making daft moves to the basket. He's been that way for years. Sometimes he actually makes them. You take the rough with the smooth.
Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:The Lakers didn't want to pay him $7.7 mil (basically slightly more than the average player). That was money they couldn't use on anyone else anyway. It's not like they were clearing cap space and it's not like they're known for being cheapskates.
Luxury Tax. Without Kobe they don't make playoffs (or don't go far if they make 7/8th seed). So it was pointless.
Then a much older Steve Nash with almost triple the remaining salary is gonna kill them with the luxury tax!
Do you just say stuff to say stuff or does any of it ever add to discussion?
martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:The Lakers didn't want to pay him $7.7 mil (basically slightly more than the average player). That was money they couldn't use on anyone else anyway. It's not like they were clearing cap space and it's not like they're known for being cheapskates.
Luxury Tax. Without Kobe they don't make playoffs (or don't go far if they make 7/8th seed). So it was pointless.
Then a much older Steve Nash with almost triple the remaining salary is gonna kill them with the luxury tax!
Do you just say stuff to say stuff or does any of it ever add to discussion?
Do you try to be the most inflammatory moderator of any forum I'm aware of or does it just come out naturally?
Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:The Lakers didn't want to pay him $7.7 mil (basically slightly more than the average player). That was money they couldn't use on anyone else anyway. It's not like they were clearing cap space and it's not like they're known for being cheapskates.
Luxury Tax. Without Kobe they don't make playoffs (or don't go far if they make 7/8th seed). So it was pointless.
Then a much older Steve Nash with almost triple the remaining salary is gonna kill them with the luxury tax!
Do you just say stuff to say stuff or does any of it ever add to discussion?
Do you try to be the most inflammatory moderator of any forum I'm aware of or does it just come out naturally?
Naturally, especially with those I know who can do much better. I don't see any thought process, just dumping of whatever pops into brain.
You don't ask yourself why keep Nash over Artest? Swallowing 2 years of contract over just 1? Luxury tax line? Anything?
Removing Artest puts the Lakers just under the luxury tax line; his salary was the best - most economical - they could amnesty. Next year they only have 2 or 3 players on guarantees, so Nash prob won't count against luxury cap.
martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:The Lakers didn't want to pay him $7.7 mil (basically slightly more than the average player). That was money they couldn't use on anyone else anyway. It's not like they were clearing cap space and it's not like they're known for being cheapskates.
Luxury Tax. Without Kobe they don't make playoffs (or don't go far if they make 7/8th seed). So it was pointless.
Then a much older Steve Nash with almost triple the remaining salary is gonna kill them with the luxury tax!
Do you just say stuff to say stuff or does any of it ever add to discussion?
Do you try to be the most inflammatory moderator of any forum I'm aware of or does it just come out naturally?
Naturally, especially with those I know who can do much better. I don't see any thought process, just dumping of whatever pops into brain.
You don't ask yourself why keep Nash over Artest? Swallowing 2 years of contract over just 1? Luxury tax line? Anything?
Removing Artest puts the Lakers just under the luxury tax line; his salary was the best - most economical - they could amnesty. Next year they only have 2 or 3 players on guarantees, so Nash prob won't count against luxury cap.
Plus it's looking very likely that Nash will retire.
MWP is done. Send him to the glue factory with Amare take Chris Smith too.
martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:The Lakers didn't want to pay him $7.7 mil (basically slightly more than the average player). That was money they couldn't use on anyone else anyway. It's not like they were clearing cap space and it's not like they're known for being cheapskates.
Luxury Tax. Without Kobe they don't make playoffs (or don't go far if they make 7/8th seed). So it was pointless.
Then a much older Steve Nash with almost triple the remaining salary is gonna kill them with the luxury tax!
Do you just say stuff to say stuff or does any of it ever add to discussion?
Do you try to be the most inflammatory moderator of any forum I'm aware of or does it just come out naturally?
Naturally, especially with those I know who can do much better. I don't see any thought process, just dumping of whatever pops into brain.
You don't ask yourself why keep Nash over Artest? Swallowing 2 years of contract over just 1? Luxury tax line? Anything?
Removing Artest puts the Lakers just under the luxury tax line; his salary was the best - most economical - they could amnesty. Next year they only have 2 or 3 players on guarantees, so Nash prob won't count against luxury cap.
Wow, talk about embarrassing yourself. You don't even realize that if they amnesty a guy with a bigger salary it means they save more money.
They're already swallowing the money because they're spending it and getting no production.
Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:The Lakers didn't want to pay him $7.7 mil (basically slightly more than the average player). That was money they couldn't use on anyone else anyway. It's not like they were clearing cap space and it's not like they're known for being cheapskates.
Luxury Tax. Without Kobe they don't make playoffs (or don't go far if they make 7/8th seed). So it was pointless.
Then a much older Steve Nash with almost triple the remaining salary is gonna kill them with the luxury tax!
Do you just say stuff to say stuff or does any of it ever add to discussion?
Do you try to be the most inflammatory moderator of any forum I'm aware of or does it just come out naturally?
Naturally, especially with those I know who can do much better. I don't see any thought process, just dumping of whatever pops into brain.
You don't ask yourself why keep Nash over Artest? Swallowing 2 years of contract over just 1? Luxury tax line? Anything?
Removing Artest puts the Lakers just under the luxury tax line; his salary was the best - most economical - they could amnesty. Next year they only have 2 or 3 players on guarantees, so Nash prob won't count against luxury cap.
Wow, talk about embarrassing yourself. You don't even realize that if they amnesty a guy with a bigger salary it means they save more money.
They're already swallowing the money because they're spending it and getting no production.
Bonnie, please tell me how that is. How do they save more?
martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:The Lakers didn't want to pay him $7.7 mil (basically slightly more than the average player). That was money they couldn't use on anyone else anyway. It's not like they were clearing cap space and it's not like they're known for being cheapskates.
Luxury Tax. Without Kobe they don't make playoffs (or don't go far if they make 7/8th seed). So it was pointless.
Then a much older Steve Nash with almost triple the remaining salary is gonna kill them with the luxury tax!
Do you just say stuff to say stuff or does any of it ever add to discussion?
Do you try to be the most inflammatory moderator of any forum I'm aware of or does it just come out naturally?
Naturally, especially with those I know who can do much better. I don't see any thought process, just dumping of whatever pops into brain.
You don't ask yourself why keep Nash over Artest? Swallowing 2 years of contract over just 1? Luxury tax line? Anything?
Removing Artest puts the Lakers just under the luxury tax line; his salary was the best - most economical - they could amnesty. Next year they only have 2 or 3 players on guarantees, so Nash prob won't count against luxury cap.
Wow, talk about embarrassing yourself. You don't even realize that if they amnesty a guy with a bigger salary it means they save more money.
They're already swallowing the money because they're spending it and getting no production.
Bonnie, please tell me how that is. How do they save more?
uhm, because they'd be over the luxury tax threshold by less money this year. And another benefit is they'd also have more room available to spend next year without going over the luxury tax.
