I’m a late read. I like your analysis very much.

A factor that you might have emphasized more is experience. Other than Derek, Luke is the only Laker who has transitioned all the way from the Shaq-Kobe to the Gasol-Kobe era. He has earned the confidence of the Laker organization to provide leadership and to facilitate.

I believe that Trevor is, in fact, the starting 3 already–coming off the bench like Manu–but for a completely different purpose. Luke’s purpose is to keep the Lakers playing as a team from the start–making it easier for Derek, Kobe, Pau and (especially) Andrew to score–providing a reliable defender when it is time to rotate and switch. As the season progresses, Luke’s shooting will improve–and he’ll hit the clutch 3 when the Lakers need it.

Luke’s apparent problems on defense may not always be his fault. Some critics seem to ignore the amount of unnecessary free lancing that leads to missed rotations and easy layups. Luke may sometimes look wrong because he adheres to a team concept being violated by his teammates.

I believe that Renato’s suggestion is worth considering: more situational lineups. It may well be the case that VladRad will be more appropriate against some opponents–and Luke for others.

There is still plenty of time to find out.

As for Kwame and Smush, at the time he didn’t have better options. He didn’t love Kwame, but when he could get Kwame to just rebound and be a big body in the paint, he was useful. There were focus issues that no coach could correct, but Bynum was not ready to start, that was not the Bynum we have now. And, that was not the Farmar we have now either, Smush had the skills to be a good PG but he also had mental issues. When he stayed within the system he could have been a functional backup PG. He just couldn’t.

How’d that work out for you in Minnesota, big guy? No wonder Ainge likes KG so much — they’re both overrated whiners who only won titles because they were surrounded by better players.

For argument’s sake, if he does go to Boston, I don’t think he makes much of an improvement. The J.R. Rider example given earlier was a good one. I’d have been more upset had they landed a big man, such as Deke or P.J. Brown again.

http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/01/02/kevin-garnett-profile-in-courage/

The difference is that he is older now, and knows that this gig won’t last forever. I think that will overpower his ego for a few months.

on the contrary, i think his passes lead to the best of sportscenter highlights. i still shiver when i think of that one fastbreak last season against miami.

Gerrit, Berry doesn’t say Rodman was better than Jordan. He could at most say that Rodman was more productive. Which, probably, isn’t true. But is this enough to call Barri’s ideas “utter nonsense”? I disagree.

Re: Marbury in Celtics. I’d love it. It’s not that Marbury is a cancer (which is true). It’s that Marbury isn’t a good basketball player anymore. His FG% for the last two seasons: .415, .419.

FT% for the last four seasons: .834, .755, .769, .716.

His assists/per36 for the last five seasons: 8.0, 7.3, 6.3, 5.3, 5.1 (do we see a trend or what?).

He’s rebounding and blocking is non-existant. For the last three seasons his ORtg is lower than DRtg.

“Accomplished”??? What did he accomplish in the NBA? He was and is overhyped and overpaid. I’d love to see Marbury in Celtics – it’d be a great example of subtraction by addition.

On the second thought: I’d rather play in the finals against Celtics instead of Cavaliers.