Comments on: Odom Equilibrium

By: Incerase vertical

Incerase vertical — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:26:28 +0000

I think how long Kobe has left is totally in his own control – if he realistically is going to play 5 – 7 more years at the top then it will come down to how he looks after himself off the court. I guess how he is managed on the court ie: minutes etc will also play a role, but the main role will be on his own shoulders.

By: gxs

gxs — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:05:43 +0000

Any word on Odom?

I’ve checked the headlines, Miami, Portland, no even the Knicks.

Just wondering if you guys had any fresh takes.

By: pcblack

pcblack — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:41:53 +0000

Also does anyone know where i can find those defensive ratings ive seen for odom and fisher? Speaking of Fish,how pissed is he,hes making $4.7 mil. and hes way more clutch than odom who wont take 9 million… Makes him wanna puke i bet..pc

By: pcblack

pcblack — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:35:48 +0000

Kobes stays in great shape,hes got 5-7 years left barring injury. If we get him a dependable backup 2g,we can cut his minutes down.. Shannon brown or sasha can fill that void i hope. When hes done whe will bypass mj….pc

By: Kaveh

Kaveh — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:00:06 +0000

robinred,

You’re mistaken on a few levels. Firstly, an NBA players PRIME years are typically anywhere from 27-32. Pau is 28, Artest is 29, Odom is 29, Kobe is 30.

Secondly, Jordan didn’t even win his first title until he was 29! He won his last at age 36-37. I fully expect Kobe to be an MVP caliber player until 34.

Thirdly, when you say “mileage” it doesn’t make much sense. It’s as if you don’t recognize any “mileage” of a player before their NBA days. Kobe skipped college to play in the NBA while Jordan played a few years years in college. There is no difference between their mileage –it’s just that they played in different leagues. Not to mention that Kobe only played like 15 minutes per game in his first year or so.

What really matters is age, genetics and work ethic. Kobe is 30, still in the middle of his prime. Kobe has that body that looks to last. Like Jordan, Kobe has never really had ANY serious injuries (no jinx please). And both have work ethics rivaled by none.

Even Shaq, who’s like 38 now, won a championship 3 years ago at age 35. His body is made to break down and yet he wasn’t that much off of his MVP level he played at with the lakers. I fully expect Kobe to be far closer to his peak at 35 than Shaq was. Shaq has the body which is basically made to breakdown, while Kobe has the exact opposite body.

Also, I think Phil Jackson said it best on age –he said that players actually get BETTER as they age as long as they keep roughly 90% of their athleticism. Kobe is far better today than he was in his early 20′s, while he had more jump in his step back then. Kobe will continue to improve his playmaking ability and shooting ability, not to mention his overall understanding of the game. This will more than make up for his slight loss in athleticism over the next 5 years or so.

By: kehn

kehn — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:23:41 +0000

If I’m understanding this correctly, though – Lamar doesn’t have jack to work with until another team tenders him an offer, right? Until that happens (if it does), the Lakers own his rights, yes?

By: Zephid

Zephid — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:20:11 +0000

kaveh, perhaps he didn’t have a choice, but he did perform his role without complaint or making any sort of a fuss except for one sentence to the media in October.

Think of it this way. Say you got drafted into the military, went off to fight in a war, and came back here. Sure, you didn’t have a choice, but you damn well deserve some praise for actually going and doing it.

And you’re completely wrong about Lamar sucking before Bynum got injured. Lamar was leading the Lakers in +/- for the entire season, especially in the beginning of the year. The bench was absolutely destroying other teams in the beginning of the year, and a lot of that had to do with Lamar (and Trevor, of course). So you’re just completely wrong about Lamar playing terribly when he lacked minutes.

By: kaveh

kaveh — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:03:01 +0000

207 Zephid

you wrote:
amar is a guy who sacrificed his role for the sake of the team, did all the little things asked of him, and selflessly accepted whatever the coaches asked of him”

I’m sorry, but i didn’t realize that Lamar had a decision in the matter. Before Bynum was injured Lamar sucked the place up to high heaven! Only after Bynum got injured and Lamar got his starting role / playing time back, did he actually give some effort in some games and played excellent in the playoffs.

I would love Lamar back and if it were me and my decision was: lamar with 10m or not lamar, i’d pay the man. But i’d also trade him for Beasley without second thought, and we have options if he leaves. All is not lost if Lamar is not a laker.

By: TB

TB — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:30:51 +0000

“Success is often the first step toward disaster. I call it, ‘the disease of more’. People start thinking, ‘I’m really the key ingredient. It was my quality minutes off the bench. It was my outstanding defense. People who were quiet during the lean years suddenly want more money, more playing time, more recognition. And they get aggressive and jealous about pulling in their ‘more’. The disease of more takes away their perspective.”
-Pat Riley

I quoted this on an earlier thread about Trevor. I get the feeling we’re headed down the same road with LO. The disease of more continues to spread.

By: Bill K

Bill K — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:57:27 +0000

Rejecting the Lakers offer still doesn’t make a lot of sense from a present value standpoint…the Lakers higher near-term salaries can be invested to yield some of that 4th and 5th years income Lamar seems to be looking for…