Since before my time of heading up FB&G, the mantra of this site has been that the Lakers will go as far as their defense takes them.  Because while the Lakers offense (with Kobe being the centerpiece of it all) has often positioned them as a successful team and one of the true glamour franchises, it’s been the Lakers’ ability to get stops that has truly propelled them into contention.  No more evidence is needed than what’s been shown in the past three seasons where the Lakers have won two championships on the back of their ability to defend (at least in the key moments of games) and lost a title because their offense was flummoxed while their defense couldn’t secure the needed stops to earn the needed victories.

What’s had me thinking about the Lakers defense in the past couple of weeks are two specific things.  First is my re-watching of the Lakers’ game 7 win over the Celtics.  In that epic slug fest of a deciding game, the Lakers’ held the Celtics to a 45.1 EFG% while allowing an excellent 95.1 offensive rating from the C’s (stats via basketball-reference).  In no quarter did Boston score more than 23 points (and that was the opening period) and the Lakersessentially tightened the D en route to an NBA title.  (The Lakers’ offensive rebounding helped a bunch too, but securing stops, I think was just as important.  The ability to get secondchance points means nothing if the other team has built too big a lead for those second chances to really matter.)

The second thing that has had me thinking about defense are the series of excellent postsput together by Henry Abbott over at TrueHoop exploring the why in the definitive statement that defense wins championships (give them all a read – they’re well worth your time).  For the basis of his posts, Abbott used an article from Neil Paine at Basket Ball-Reference where the past 50 years of data were explored to show that when a team’s defense improved their chances of winning a championship also improved. 

One person that provided feedback to Abbott’s posts was David Thorpe (whose basketball insight is always appreciated):

David Thorpe has been reading all this, and loves the idea that good defense may be a marker for team cohesion. However, he also thinks we have been missing a major point, which is that good defense leads to good offense, and the opposite is less true.

And, as usual, Thorpe is right in that good defense typically does lead to good offense.  Whether by forcing turnovers (that lead to fast break points and easy baskets) or by forcing misses that lead to rebounds and the ability to transition to offense against a scrambling defense, good defense  is a great offensive spark for the team transitioning from defense to offense.  One only need to remember how successful the OKC Thunder were against the Lakers when they were able to force misses and then use their athletic advantage in the open court to ram the ball down LA’s throat for easy buckets and trips to the FT line.

However, when Thorpe says that “good  D leads to good O while the opposite is less true”, one team that this doesn’t necessarily apply to is the Lakers.  You see, the Lakers run an offensive system that is supposed to allow an easy transition to defense.  Said another way, when run correctly, the Triangle should allow the Lakers to transition to defense very effectively and set up their half court defense.  This is true even without producing a made basket; a made basket that should slow down the opposing offense by forcing them to take the ball out of the net before getting into their own offense. 

And the reason for this easy transition is offensive spacing and a balanced floor.  The Lakers strive to achieve both of these principles every time they set up their offense andby doing so, they are trying to position players on the court in a manner that leads to success both offensively and defensively.  For example, on nearly every offensive possession, the Lakerslike to set up in a two guard front where both guards (I use the term “guard” here loosely as any player – from Odom to Artest to Gasol – can be in this position) are above the three point line and outside the lane line.  Even when an entry pass is made and these top side guards cut through, the natural motion of the offense leads to players filling into these spots on the floor to allow for that spacing to remain intact.  And with this spacing and floor balance in place, any time a shot goes up the two top side guards can then retreat to the defensive end in order to slow the ball down and allow for the rest of the team to get back and join their defensive mates.  Essentially, when the Lakers play good offense, good defense follows.

I’ll use the OKC series as an example again.  In that series, many credit the switching of Kobe Bryant onto Russell Westbrook as the major change that increased the Lakers’ defensive effectiveness as a unit.  And while that is true, what also made a difference was the Lakers’ commitment to executing their offense at a higher level.  As we described in this post, the Lakers return to running the Triangle was a major theme of their Game 5 win.  And with that return of the offense we also saw the Thunder’s offense suffer through one of the worst games of their season.  I mean, the Lakers focusing on spacing, cutting, floor balance, and inside play directly led to OKC having to face the Lakers’ set defense for the majority of the game andthe results weren’t pretty – a series high 20 3pt FGA, their second lowest point total of the series, and their 2nd lowest FG% of the series. 

It’s no coincidence that the Lakers defense has proven to be stronger when their offense is executed better.  In fact, it’s actually a testament to the individual defense of the Lakers and their greater commitment to that side of the ball that they were able to maintain a high defensive efficiency this past season (4th in the NBA) even though their offensive execution was not up to the standard of past years.  I give a lot of credit to Artest, an improved Bynum, Kobe, and the still underrated-defensively Pau Gasol for helping the Lakers to thrive on that side of the ball this past year.  Next season, I hope to see a greater commitment to offensive execution which should only lead to an even better defensive year.  And if that does occur, I think we’ll finally see the full potential of this Lakersteam on both sides of the ball – with a win total to match.

In recent weeks, the topic of the “positional revolution” has become a hot topic amongst basketball thinkers.  It started with a thought provoking post by Drew Cannon at Basketball Prospectus and has been expanded upon by more thought provoking entriesby Rob Mahoney at The Two Man game.  The concept is a simple one (at least my cliff notes version is): as basketball players become more skilled and are able to perform multiple (and varied) tasks on the basketball court, the confines of traditional positional labeling is becoming too constraining.  And as players evolve, so does the game they play and thus conventional thinking about players’ position(s) can then become obsolete.  A perfect example of this is Dirk Nowitzki as he’s a sharp shooting, ball handling big man that is called a Power Forward but really performs (offensive) tasks on the court that are quite similar to what we traditionally see from Shooting Guards or Small Forwards.  The Mavs run the offense through Dirk at the high post and use him as a ball handler in P&R situations.  However, on defense he falls into a more traditional role as he defends big men and rebounds at a very good rate.  Obviously, Dirk is an extreme example, but he’s not alone in his diversity as a player and his break from traditional roles typically assigned to a player that is labeled a specific position.

And this brings me to our Lakers as others have chimed in on the evolution of the game that we all love – including Kobe Bryant.  During a media session at the World Basketball Festival at Rucker Park in New York, Kobe spoke about the evolution of the game and the influence of international players on the NBA.  An excerpt from an Austin Burton’s entry at Dime Magazine:

Kobe said the influence of international players in the NBA has helped create a “hybrid” culture, where players of all sizes possess skills in all areas and can conceivably play any position on the floor.

“That’s the one difference I’d like to see us kind of shift to,” Kobe said.

This vision of five basketball players, devoid of traditional positional constraints, passing and cutting and posting and shooting and dribbling with equal aplomb, is near.  The concept of players assuming a definite position on the floor and sticking to that role is fading away like one of Kobe’s jumpers, as a new age of hybrids begin to take over the game.

Over at FanHouse, Matt Moore has been following the conversation started by Cannon and expanded by Mahoney and also picked up on what Kobe was saying, adding this:

It’s not surprising that Bryant would lean towards this kind of approach. After all, he himself is not only willing, but voracious in approaching any position on the floor. You could tell Kobe “go guard Nene with one arm” and he’d make a go of it (and Nene would likely walk away wincing a bit, even if he won the war). But the meaning is very relevant. This is one of the greatest basketball players and minds on the planet saying that essentially, the goal should be not only for us to get away from traditional positions, but eventually to homogenize personnel to be able to play within any construct we have. It’s a bold idea, since all of our previous constructs are devoutly built on the idea that a player is defined by what he can and can’t do. Removing limitations from the equations leads us to a new kind of basketball nirvana, where Andrea Bargnaniis not a problem because he’s not a 5, and Tyreke Evans is simply regarded as being of the “awesome position.”

And over at TrueHoop, Kevin Arnovitz is also exploring Kobe’s comments and adds that one reason Kobe (and other members of the Lakers) may be more open to this line of thinking and flashing multi-faceted skills is because of the system that they run:

There’s a reason the Lakers have “a lot of versatile talent that evades convention.” It’s because the team features an offense that de-emphasizes traditional positions in favor of function. In the triangle offense, Derek Fisher — the nominal point guard — acts as a spot-up shooter in the confines of the half court (particularly in corner sets) far more often than he does as a distributor. The wings in the triangle are often the trigger men, and the Lakers can maximize Bryant (their shooting guard) in the post without disrupting the sequential flow of the triangle.

Kevin takes the words right out of my mouth (though he said them much better, of course).  When you look at the Lakers’ roster, there are several players that defy classic models of “positions” in basketball.  Whether we’re talking about Kobe or Fisher, Odom or Gasol, the Lakers have a roster of players that are expected to perform roles within a system that don’t always cleanly match up with the roles of their labeled position.  As Arnovitz points out, Fisher is not a “point guard” in the classic sense as he’s not necessarily a primary ball handler or initiator of offense (though he does perform these roles).  For a more extreme example, look at Lamar Odom.  When LO is in the game, he’s often used as a facilitator of offense and a primary ball handler – all as a “power forward”.  And while he does find himself in the post on occasion, he’s used much more frequently as a creator of offense in isolation sets from the top of the key or as a slasher off the ball that slides into open space when others (Kobe, Pau) draw the opponents defensive attention.  None of these acts are ones that are usually assigned to a team’s power foward.

Even on defense, the Lakers don’t often stick to traditional roles.  For example, as the WCF against the Phoenix Suns progressed, the Lakers started to switch the Amare/Nash P&R where Gasol (or Odom or Bynum) then got matched up on Nash for long stretches of Phoenix’s offensive possessions.  The Lakers’ big men then became defenders of one of the best PG’s in the game and were expected to keep him out of the paint and contest his shots in space.  Meanwhile, Nash’s original defender either rotated to the diving big man or switched to another player on the wing as the Lakers’ rotations took hold and every player was expected to show enough versatility to potentially guard any player on the court.  Other examples of the Lakers defying positional labels on defense are Kobe being switched onto PG’s like Rondo and Westbrook while Fisher guarded SG’s like Ray Allen and Thabo Sefalosha.  Even during the regular season when Kobe sat out injured against the Blazers, rather than starting Shannon Brown (as would typically occur), Phil Jackson decided to start Lamar Odom (with Fisher, Artest, Bynum, and Gasol) so that LO could match up with Andre Miller (a PG that excels at posting up).

There are countless other examples of the Lakers’ philosophies on offense and defense promoting the concept of a position-less team – Kobe as a primary post up player, Gasol as a wing player making entry passes, Ron Artest guarding PG’s, etc - but the overall point is that this is a concept that bears watching in the coming years.  Players are becoming more diverse and we may indeed see that players are filling “roles” on teams (creator, rebounder, etc) rather than being expected to perform the duties typically associated with a specific position on the floor.  And if this does indeed occur, I do believe the Lakers – at least as currently constructed – will be a team that will excel in this type of classification of players as they’re already implementing these concepts into their everyday style.

However, the part that interested me the most were Buss’ comments on the Miami Heat.  Here’s a sample:

Suddenly there’s this juggernaut out there that we have a chance to play against and that excites me, that really excites me because, quite honestly, I think we can beat them and I’m looking forward to playing them.  I don’t think it’s automatic that Miami will be our biggest opponent come the end, but on the other hand, I must admit they have the world’s attention and that means we’re going to be on center stage when we get a chance to play them.

He then spoke about the Lakers’ personnel moves of this past summer in relation to the “super team” that the Heat have assembled:

Our intentions were to sign those players prior to Miami coalescing all of the talent that was left over.  I don’t think we reacted to them. Once the season is over, we look backwards on the season and say, ‘Were there any weaknesses? Could we do something to improve this team?’ And we did that quite independently of Miami. … I think we just prepared ourselves for the general war, not specifically for anyone.

All of this interests me not because of the reference to the Heat or because Dr. Buss semi-discounts their chances of being the top contender by lumping them in with other very strong teams like the Magic or the Celtics.  But, it interests me because we got a little insight into the mentality of the Lakers brass when building a team.  You see, the Lakers were intent on not standing pat.  Their goal was to build as strong a team as possible that could manage to defeat any opponent rather than gearing up for one specific team. 

And this is a mentality that has been lost on other contenders over the past couple of seasons.  Look at the 2009-10 Cavs for example.  That team aquired Shaq during the off-season to deal with Dwight Howard and then traded for Antawn Jamison at the trade deadline in order to better match up with Rashard Lewis, both of whom play for the Magic.  This would seem like common sense considering the Magic eliminated the Cavs the previous Spring.  However, these moves proved to be short sighted as the Cavs never faced the Magic in the 2010 playoffs and instead were dispacthed by the Celtics in six games.  You see the Celtics had the perfect counter to the moves that the Cavs made to “improve” as they attacked Shaq in P&R and off ball screen actions that took advantage of his limited mobility on defense while smothering Jamison with a long and (still) athletic defender in KG.  This forced the Cavs to turn to a Lebron-centric offense that the Celtics are built to shut down over the course of a playoff series.  Really, the results were inevitbable as the Cavs roster was not built to beat all comers, but was instead built to beat ones that depended on big man play (the Magic or Lakers) that they never ended up facing.  (I understand that this is a simplistic view and that there is much more nuance to the Cavs/Celtics match up that was not explored.  However, this was essentially the key to the series as the Cavs didn’t have the variety of offensive threats on the wing and their big man that could actually score – Shaq – was a liability on defense while their best defensive big man – Varejao – could not score against the C’s dominant defense.  This left Lebron on an island and even though he performed well on most nights, it was not enough.)

Meanwhile, look at teams like Boston and the Lakers.  These are teams that continue to self scout, identify general weaknesses that matter against every oponent, and them attempt to address them through their personnel decisions.  This past off-season, Boston knew that it was short on big man depth and acquired the O’neal’s (Shaq and Jermaine).  They also knew that they were short on perimeter defenders and back court scoring and then sought to retain Marquise Daniels (who is better than the showed in an injury riddled season last year) and Nate Robinson.  When you combine those moves with the retention of Ray Allen, Pierce, KG, and an improving Rondo and you have a versatile roster that can match up with any team in the league by scoring enough and clamping down on defense.  As for the Lakers, you see the same approach of identifying weaknesses and then moving to improve those areas.  Need a steadier point guard that can play with either the starters or the resevers?  Enter Steve Blake.  Need a back up SF that can defend, rebound, shoot the three ball, and slash off the ball?  Go get Matt Barnes.  Even by retaining Shannon Brown and drafting Ebanks/Caracter, the Lakers addressed their youth and athleticism concerns.   This is how you build a team.

So, while Dr. Buss was speaking on any and all topics I was listening to the parts where he was talking about how this organization was intent on staying on top.  A good friend of mine has always said that even championship teams need a certain amount of turnover to stay competitive.  We saw this last year with the addition of Ron Artest and see it again this season with Barnes, Blake, and Ratliff.  No one can be sure if this will be enough for the Lakers to remain the class of the league, but I’m grateful to Dr. Buss for opening his wallet and to Mitch for working his magic with the agents and players to bring in guys that have made a strong team even stronger by suring up weaknesses with quality contributors.

It’s time for another installment of the FB&G mailbag.  If you’d like to submit a question, click here and fire away.  Thanks again to everyone that has sent in questions.  Here we go…

When Phil Jackson retires, does that mean the end of the Lakers’ championship window? After all, the all-powerful team has been struck down a notch and the HEAT has garnered a year of experience for themselves. As a Laker fan, it is the season after this that has me most worried.

-Anonymous

I think losing Phil Jackson will be a blow to the Lakers.  However, I would not say that the Lakers championship window would “close” based solely off the fact that Phil would no longer be the coach.  Because, while extremely important, there are many other factors that go into winning a championship besides coaching.

At the top of that list is talent and, even without Phil as the head man, the Lakers will still have one of the best rosters in the league when Phil departs.  Just when looking at the Lakers top 5 players – Kobe, Pau, Bynum, Odom, and Artest – you have the makings of a championship roster, even if we’re talking 3 years from now.  And this only references talent that is in house and on the court.  When you look at Mitch Kupchak’s recent ability to build a championship team by drafting well and winning trades, it’s easy to forecast the Lakers continuing to build a strong roster even as the team ages – especially when considering the market advantages the Lakers possess by being based in Los Angeles and the brand advantage they have of being one of the most storied organizations in all of sports.

And while I agree that there are fast rising teams around the league (Miami, OKC) and traditional powers from the past few seasons (Orlando, Boston, Spurs) it’s still unknown how those teams will develop and grow over the next few years.  Will the new collective bargaining agreement be an impediment to building upon their already impressive rosters?  Will the Heat and Thunder respond to heightened expectations and beat back the pressure in a manner that leads to them dominating the league?  I don’t pretend to know the answers to the these questions nor do I want to cast doubt on either of these teams.  But in the end, I believe the Lakers will be right there battling for the title for seasons to come.  And as a fan, that’s really all I can ask for.

Do you think that with the recent additions of Matt Barnes and Steve Blake that the Lakers get into the top 10 in 3 point shooting?  I know these past few years the Lakers have not been a great perimeter shooting team (for example, when facing the zone defense vs. Phoenix in WCF).

-Daniel

Considering the Lakers tied for 23^rd in the NBA in 3 point FG% last season, if next year’s Lakers were to jump into the top 10 would seem like a miracle.  However, it’s actually not that far fetched.  Consider the following:  last season the Lakers shot 34.1% from behind the arc, making 532 of their 1,562 attempts.  As I mentioned, that ranked them 23^rd in the NBA in 3 pt. FG% (tied with Minnesota).   Denver was the 10^th ranked team in the NBA, shooting 35.9% on their long ball attempts.  Using this past year as a template, the Lakers would have only needed to hit 33 more three pointers on the same number of attempts to raise their percentage to 36.2% – a percentage which would have ranked them 9^th in the NBA right above the Hawks.

Now also consider that this past season both Kobe and Derek Fisher shot below their career averages by shooting 32.9% and 34.8% respectively (compared to 34% and 37.3%) and were well below their averages from the season before (35.1% and 39.7% respectively).  So, if Kobe and Fisher revert anywhere close to their career averages, the Lakers should be a better three point shooting team next season overall considering that combined, Kobe and Fish took about one-third of the Lakers attempts from deep.  Then, when you replace Farmar with Steve Blake and consider the possibility that Ron Artest will be more consistent from three point land next season and you have the ingredients for a major jump in three point shooting accuracy.

This isn’t to say that I’d call this particular Lakers’ team a great shooting team.  Nor am I guaranteeing that all the things I mentioned earlier are sure to happen or are even likely (I could see Kobe struggling from deep again and/or Fisher continuing his regression as a shooter), but the potential for a big jump in three point accuracy is there for this team.  And in the end, I do believe that the Lakers will shoot better to the point that if they aren’t in the top 10, they’ll be right on the cusp.

I understand that Shannon and Sasha have different weaknesses and strengths.  But why did Sasha fall out of favor with Phil and the coaching staff and not get any burn last year while Shannon got a lot despite a regression in his game?  Is it a personality issue?  Is it because Sasha got almost the entire 09 regular season to show what he had and Phil finally lost patience? 

If that was the case, was last year’s regular season the same principle applied to Shannon?  He had a great 09 playoff run so coaches gave him the entire 10 season to work through his game like they did with Sasha in 09. 

Will Shannon be on a tighter rope this year and the coaches looking at him and Sasha equally?  Or does Sasha’s personality bother the staff so much that he’ll be glued to the bench unless there’s a huge separation between him and Shannon.

-Jason/Chownoir

Not being in the locker room or in the practices, I can’t speak to any potential personality issues that exist between Sasha and the coaches.  And while Sasha did have that spat with Brian Shaw that earned him an extended stay in Phil’s doghouse, Sasha’s minutes were sporadic at best to that point in the season.  So, I believe that Sasha’s shorter leash has been based off his experience in the league and specifically his tenure on the Lakers and in the Triangle offense.  Essentially, Sasha should been better tuned into how the coaches wanted him to play and acted accordingly.  The fact that he still made the same mistakes that he’s been making for several seasons all while not bringing the consistency as a shooter that earned him time in 2008 led to a diminished role and a lower tolerance of his mistakes.

Meanwhile, this past year was Shannon’s first full year with the team.  To be fair, he was still learning his role and was still feeling out the Lakers’ sets.  And while Shannon made plenty of mistakes too, those could easily be explained away by his relative inexperience in the Triangle at a time when the Lakers coaches were (seemingly) imploring him to explore more facets of his game.  Personally, I was frustrated at times with Shannon’s decision making, but along the same lines, players do not improve if you don’t give them room to fail and then learn from those mistakes.

All that said, I do believe this season will be the litmus test for Shannon and that there will be greater expectations on him to perform well and do so within the confines of his role.  I think the coaches will be less patient with him and that he may too find himself glued to the pine if he doesn’t “play the right way” by making the correct reads and moving the ball in the manner that every player is expected to do.  Remember too that Shannon saw his minutes greatly reduced in the Finals when he made several defensive mistakes against Ray Allen while struggling on offense himself.  Phil then turned to Sasha as a defensive presence against Allen and the Machine performed well in his limited minutes.  So next season, even though Shannon just got re-signed and Sasha is reportedly on the trading block, I believe this competition may be more open than a first glance suggests.  I think that Shannon definitely has the upper hand as he’s the more athletic player, seemingly takes coaching better, and has more upside as a contributor on both ends of the floor.  But, that doesn’t mean that Sasha can’t/won’t have a role if he’s on the roster and next season may prove to be the year that the Machine makes his way back into the rotation.

For the last 3 years the top of the West has been in a constant state of flux. We’ve faced 3 different teams in the WCF, and the first 2 (San Antonio and Denver) have both failed to win a playoff series the following year. That trend looks likely to continue with Phoenix losing Amar’e.  With all that said, who do you see emerging as the main threat to the Lakers’ conference supremacy in 2010/11? I think Portland and Houston will be very dangerous IF their big men are healthy. What’s your take?

-Joel

I think the easy choice in who will truly challenge the Lakers are the Thunder.  The argument is easily made that, besides the Celtics, OKC gave the Lakers the stiffest challenge of any competitor and that with the experience they’ve gained and the continued growth of Durant and Westbrook that they’ll make a major leap next season and be a team that makes the conference finals.

However, the team that I’m probably most high on is the Houston Rockets.  In a recent post at TrueHoop, I mentioned why I believe Houston has a chance to step up and challenge for the #2 spot behind the Lakers and I’m not wavering in that belief.  Yes, a lot will depend on the health of Yao and Kevin Martin.  And as I mention in TH piece, I’m skeptical about the individual defense of Aaron Brooks, Scola, and Brad Miller.  However, when it’s all said and done I think their combination of top notch talent (I truly respect Yao Ming and think he has a tremendous impact on both ends of the floor), role players, and coaching will take them a long way this season.  Plus, I really like the acquisition of Courtney Lee in the Ariza trade.  While I love Trevor and think he’s getting a bit of a raw deal in the analysis of how he played last year, I think Lee is a great combo guard that will bring some of the guard skills that Ariza lacked.  I also think he’s a versatile enough defender that he can play some PG against the CP3/Deron/Paker/Nash/Westbrook’s of the world that Houston doesn’t always need to close the game with Brooks or Lowry while also being able to play next to either of those guys if the line ups dictate it.  Mind you, I don’t think Lee is some sort of star, but he’s another very good role player that will compliment the games of Martin and Yao very well.

(With Lamar Odom joining Team USA for the World Championships this Summer) Do you think the wear and tear will affect Odom come the season? Will he get the training camp jitters out now or will he be bringing in a new sense of discipline this year?

-Travis

There’s always the concern that playing for Team USA will wear Odom down.  He’s not the most durable player to begin with (though he’s been much better in recent seasons) and there’s surely a chance that he could end up suffering during the season from tired legs or just feel the affects of playing summer ball at the World Championships.

All that said, I think this is a great thing for Odom and will serve him well in preparing for the upcoming season.  Based off his tenure in the league, Odom will be a leader on this team and that will require a focus and discipline that should help him when the Lakers pursue their third straight championship.  I also think playing some Center in the international game is a good prep for his role on the Lakers as it will require that LO rebound and defend the paint while also moving well off the ball when teamed with explosive guards and wings.  Plus, just as with the Lakers, Odom will come off the bench for Team USA so there will not be a big change in his current role in LA.  Really, outside of the injury/fatigue risk, this should really help Odom in getting ready for the upcoming season and I’m really happy that he’s getting the opportunity to play.  I’m a firm believer that nothing get’s you ready for a season quite like playing with other excellent players and Odom will get that chance with this group.  And while the most talented guys won’t be on this particular U.S. team, this should still be a beneficial experience for LO and one that helps the Lakers.

With the recent signings of Derrick Caracter and Devin Ebanks, the Lakers roster should be officially set. As we know, the Lakers are going into next season as the two-time defending champions. Their goal will be, as it always is, to bring home the Larry O’ Brien Trophy, but during the course of the season, the Lakers will set a series of miniature goals to help them reach the ultimate goal. One of those miniature goals will be to reduce the minutes of the Lakers’ starters. Kobe Bryant will be entering his 15th season as a Laker, Andrew Bynum has been injury prone, Derek Fisher is receiving AARP magazines in the mail and Ron Artest was one of the most beat up Lakers at the end of last season. Only Pau Gasol is heading into the three-peat season looking like he can take on as many or more minutes than last year as he will be taking his first summer away from international play in quite some time – but even with a set of fresher legs, it would be nice if the Lakers can win games with Gasol playing fewer minutes. If the Lakers can reduce the minutes of the starting unit, it not only keeps them fresh for the post-season, but it also means that the Lakers reserves are getting more meaningful minutes during the regular season. Considering the learning curve of the triangle offense and the fact that there are five new additions to the Lakers roster, more minutes for those guys will do wonders come the playoffs.

So how does Phil Jackson slash minutes from the starting unit? Mitch Kupchak has already given Jackson a head start with improving on a roster that just won its second straight NBA title. Up top, the Lakers feature Fish, Steve Blake and Shannon Brown. On the wings the Lakers can play any combination of Kobe Bryant, Ron Artest, Matt Barnes, Shannon Brown, Sasha Vujacic and Luke Walton. Up front, they have Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum, Lamar Odom and newly acquired Theo Ratliff. Phil is just going to have to work out a steady rotation that allows a more equal distribution of minutes.

To start games, the Lakers will throw out a Fisher-Bryant-Artest-Gasol-Bynum lineup. A trend that we’ve seen from Phil Jackson is him letting Kobe and Pau play 10-12 minutes in the first quarter while giving Bynum and Fisher early breathers. What this has done in the past is forced the Lakers to play without both Kobe and Pau to start second quarters. More often than not, the Lakers would have the lead with Kobe/Pau on the floor only to watch that lead get chipped away. Kobe and/or would have to come back into the game much earlier than Phil would have liked, adding to their respective minutes logged.

To combat this problem, Phil can move Kobe to the bench with Fisher and Bynum, bringing in Blake, LO and Barnes. Now, to end the first quarter, we’re looking at a lineup that features a Blake-Barnes-Artest-Odom-Gasol lineup. They may lose a bit of scoring with this lineup, but they really don’t lose anything defensively. Then, to start the second quarter, Jackson can keep Barnes and Odom on the floor, bring in Shannon Brown and bring back any two the starting trio (Fisher, Kobe, Bynum) that left earlier, giving Jackson a Fisher-Kobe/Brown-Barnes-Odom-Bynum lineup to start the second. This keeps either Kobe or Gasol on the floor for the majority of, if not all of the first half. Gasol will be able to take his breather for the first six minutes of the second quarter, and come back in to close out the half strong.

It would be ideal to have Shannon Brown starting the second instead of Kobe, and have Kobe come in for Barnes a few minutes into the quarter. This will have Fisher playing 12-15 first half minutes, Kobe playing 15-18, Artest playing 15-18, Gasol 15-18 and Bynum playing 12-15. Of course, these things never work out exactly as planned, but this lays a blueprint for how the Lakers can attack this issue. Keeping these guys under 20 minutes not only addresses their collective MPG problems, but it also allows the starting unit to have fresher legs to close out fourth quarters or better – open up the second half strong enough that the reserves get to close out games. I know that it’s extremely early, and roles haven’t been defined yet, but it’s never too early to talk about ways to win and keep players healthy. Do you guys have any ideas on how the Lakers can reduce minutes? Share them in the comments.

With a roster as top-heavy as the Lakers, it’s easy to knock the bench for not performing at the same level as the starters. Biases aside though, it goes without saying that the Lakers’ bench struggled at times last season, with Lamar Odom serving as the only reliable force on a team that won an NBA title almost in spite of its sub-par reserve corps. This offseason has brought swift, if not expected change to the forum blue and gold’s roster though, as Mitch Kupchak has masterfully found a way to fill six open roster spots with proven NBA players, while also drafting two promising second-round picks, who both stand a good chance of making the team. Darius posted a great write-up yesterday about the additions of Matt Barnes and Theo Ratliff—two players who, along with Steve Blake, Odom, Sasha Vujacic and the possible return of Shannon Brown, should go a long way toward re-creating the bench mob that propelled the team to an unexpected title run in 2007-08. More importantly, they will allow veterans like Kobe, Artest and Fisher to play less minutes, while also providing insurance against injury. Even though some of the pieces are still moving, we take a look at just how deep is this year’s team is compared to other potential contenders around the league.

Barring any major surprise moves, Boston essentially brings back the same bench that helped them pull away from the Lakers in Game 4 of the Finals last season, minus defensive ace Tony Allen. They swapped out the underperforming Rasheed Wallace for another perennial underperformer in Jermaine O’Neal, though the latter’s more consistent production at this stage of his career should represent an upgrade for the C’s. Boston also re-signed Nate Robinson, who played in the post-season for the first time last year with mixed results. Their overall depth chart took a hit though when starting center Kendrick Perkins underwent surgery nearly two weeks ago that will likely keep him out until next January or February. O’Neal and Glen Davis will certainly help fill that void, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Boston picks up another piece before training camp starts.

The constantly evolving Miami Heat roster has rounded into shape quite nicely for Pat Riley, with the organization successfully luring several former veteran difference-makers to play alongside the Superfriends. Depending on whether or not head coach Erik Spoelstra chooses to start the newly re-signed Carlos Arroyo at the point, the team’s bench will likely consist of NBA journeyman Jamaal Magloire, Udonis Haslem, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, James Jones, Mario Chalmers and Juwan Howard. Mike Miller will fit in there somewhere, but again, that depends on what type of lineup the Heat ultimately decide to use. In any case, the team has flanked Dwayne Wade, LeBron James and Chris Bosh with savvy veteran leaders who only improve Miami’s status as an instant contender.

The Orlando Magic have operated with arguably the league’s best bench unit for a few years running now and will once again bring back a strong second unit in 2010-11. While the Lakers poached Barnes from Dwight Howard and Co., Orlando added some scoring punch with the additions of Chris Duhon to back up Jameer Nelson and Quentin Richardson as another outside shooting threat. Combined with the newly re-signed J.J. Redick, Martin Gortat and Brandon Bass, the Magic boast an explosive, albeit defensively underwhelming bench.

Fresh off of a six-game series against the Lakers in the Western Conference Finals, the Phoenix Suns will bring back a decidedly different roster next season after the departure of Amar’e Stoudemire, the trade for Hedo Turkoglu and free agent signings of Josh Childress and Hakim Warrick. The moves made by Phoenix after losing Stoudemire have fallen under the radar this off-season, but their roster is still loaded with versatility and adept shooting, not to mention Steve Nash. Phoenix could go with a number of different lineups, but assuming that Nash, Jason Richardson, Grant Hill and Robin Lopez all remain starters, that results in a possible bench of Childress, Channing Frye, Warrick, Goran Dragic and Jared Dudley, with one of those players being used to fill the void at starting power forward. Phoenix will miss Leandro Barbosa, who was shipped to Toronto in the trade for Turkoglu, but they have re-tooled in a hurry and will undoubtedly prove to be a matchup nightmare for many teams.

The Mavericks weren’t able to entice Cleveland into a sign-and-trade deal for LeBron, but they have re-tinkered their roster a bit around Dirk Nowitzki by trading for Tyson Chandler and re-signing Brendan Haywood. Super-sub Jason Terry and the under-used Jose Juan Barea form a potent bench for Dallas that will keep them in contention once again next season. Those pesky Oklahoma City Thunder bring back virtually the same bench that took the Lakers to six games in the First Round last season, led by Serge Ibaka, James Harden, Nick Collison and Eric Maynor. The Thunder traded two first round picks to New Orleans for outside shooting specialist Morris Peterson and promising rookie Cole Aldrich, who will provide much-needed size for Oklahoma City’s undersized front line. San Antonio also improved its front line when Brazilian big man Tiago Splitter, selected by the Spurs in the first round of the 2007 NBA Draft, finally agreed to sign with the team to back up an aging Tim Duncan. The same can’t be said for Denver, who wasn’t able to land the free agent big-man they so desperately needed to sign with their mid-level exception, leading them to sign another one-way player in Al Harrington.

One of the primary reasons the Lakers teams were so successful at the beginning of the decade was the front office’s careful management of the roster around Kobe and Shaq. Flash forward 10 years and the front office continues to support Bryant, Gasol, Bynum, Artest and Odom with key role players off the bench. Moreover, these are players in Blake, Barnes and Ratliff who are hungry for an NBA championship and will surely keep the team’s title aspirations moving along in the same way Artest did last season. Sometimes, a small tweak in personnel here and there is all that is needed when molding NBA benches, but I would venture to say that the Lakers have gone a step beyond that by not only directly addressing their greatest need—point guard—but also signing players like Barnes who will potentially play a huge role defensively against other title contenders’ top threats. Further, Blake, Barnes and Ratliff will add much-needed consistency off the pine—something that Jordan Farmar, Josh Powell, D.J. Mbenga and Luke Walton were never able to provide. The end result is a versatile, complete team that is well-prepared to defend its crown.

Coming into this off-season the Lakers had a shopping list of needs to fill.  It sounds strange to say this about a team that just won its second consecutive championship, but it was true.  The team had 6 free agents at every position on its roster that it could potentially lose and while the Lakers have (rightfully so) been considered top heavy in its talent, losing that many players – even from the bottom half of the roster – is something that needs to be addressed and (hopefully) done in a way where the team actually improves.  Well, after the Lakers signed Matt Barnes and Theo Ratliff to contracts on Thursday, the Lakers have done just that.  At this point, the Lakers have added Steve Blake, Barnes and Ratliff via free agency and drafted Devin Ebanks and Derrek Caracter to replace the departing Jordan Farmar, Adam Morrison, Josh Powell, and DJ Mbenga.  When you look at the additions and measure them against the subtractions, I don’t think anyone can argue that the Lakers have upgraded their roster.  And while we’ve given you our thoughts on Blake and have explored the games of Ebanks and Caracter, we’ve yet to touch on yesterday’s additions.  So, here we go…

Matt Barnes is the marquee add; the player that still had interest on the market from a variety of teams and nearly every contender that is still looking to complete their roster (Miami and Boston especially).  This speaks to Barnes’ value as a player and the skill set that he brings to the table.  In essence, Matt Barnes is a very similar player to Ron Artest, just less talented overall.  That’s not a knock on Barnes as Ron is one of the more talented two way players in the league that possesses an all around game that can thrive in a system like the Lakers run.  So, while Barnes may be a step down in talent, he’s still a fine player that will help the Lakers in a variety of ways.

Barnes is a good shooter (last season: 48.7% FG, 57.6 TS%) that has the ability to get hot from beyond the three point arc.  He’s a dogged defender that uses his good size and length to body offensive players and effectively contest shots while restricting their movement around the court.  Barnes is a capable ball handler and an adequate passer that has a good feel for the game.  He’s an excellent rebounder (ranked 2nd among SF in total rebound rate for those playing 20+ minutes) and does have a nose for the ball both off the glass and when loose in the open court.  And most of all, Barnes plays hard.  He’s a competitor.  He rarely takes possessions off and will fight the opposition for the ball and for court space all while furiously trying to do the right thing.  Like I said, this guy reminds me a lot of Artest and at the salary that the Lakers signed him for, I think the team has gotten extraordinary value and found a very nice piece to help complete a roster that will once again compete for the NBA championship.

However, there are negatives with Barnes’ play.  If he was only the player that I described above, he would have been one of the most sought after (role player type) free agents on July 1st, not a player that signed for a fraction of the mid-level exception on July 22nd.  Essentially, Barnes is the ultimate double-edged sword player as nearly every positive trait he exhibits can also be taken a step too far and turned into a potential negative. 

As I mentioned, Barnes is a capable shooter and can get hot, but he’s not a consistent player from behind the arc and has shot 32.9% from 3 point range for his career.  And despite that low-ish percentage, Barnes has still found a way to average two and a half attempts from that range a game for his career.  Two years ago he shot over 4 a game while with the Suns and 4 years ago he took nearly four a game with the Warriors.  So, shot selection is a question mark for Matt.  I also mentioned that Barnes is a dogged defender that plays hard, but there are times when his effort crosses the line from playing hard and scrappy, to being rough and on the line of dirty.  He’s not always been the best at containing his anger and has earned his fair share of technical fouls.  I also mentioned Barnes’ ball handling and decision making being solid, but he is a turnover prone player that at times will look to make the complex play rather than the simple one.

None of this is to say that Barnes is a bad player.  I like him a great deal and have followed his career pretty closely since his time with the Warriors.  It’s just to say that we must all understand the player that has been signed and how he’ll help and where there may be areas of concern.  And while I wanted Raja Bell over Barnes when the Lakers were intially looking to add a back up wing, I think Barnes is a great get and that he’ll add a physical toughness and desire to win that every championship team needs when they’re looking to repeat.  Barnes will help the Lakers bench a great deal and I can already envision him getting hot in some games and Phil staying with him over Artest if Ron is in a funk on that particular night.  Remember, Phil is the master of putting players in position to succeed and with Barnes being a veteran player that is used to playing 20-25 minutes a night, it’s easy to foresee there being nights where it’s Barnes that closes out the game as Ron gets an extended rest.

As for Ratliff, I think the Lakers have done very well for themselves with this signing.  However, my opinion on this is shaped by role and expectation.  Ratliff is not a difference maker.  He’s not a 20 minute a night player that will score in double digits when given extra burn or grab 12 rebounds in 25 minutes of play where Bynum/Pau are out of action or in foul trouble.  But, Ratliff is a guy that will exude professionalism and will be ready to play when his number is called.  He’ll play smart, tough basketball and will defend the opposing big that he’s asked to mark and do it to the best of his ability.  He’ll play to his strengths and that means defending the paint and deferring to his teammates on offense.  And for a 4th or 5th big man, this is exactly what the Lakers were looking for.  Remember, the Lakers still have the Gasol/Bynum/Odom triumvirate in the front court.  If (and I know it’s a big if) all those guys are healthy, there aren’t many minutes available to any other big man on the Lakers roster and I think that’s exactly the way that most fans would have it.  So, while I would have loved  Kurt Thomas to sign on to play this role, the odds of that seemed to be getting slimmer by the day once all factors are considered.  So, really, I’m quite happy with Ratliff.  Yes he’s aged.  And no, he’s no longer the “plus” athlete roaming the paint that routinely averaged 3 blocks a game in his younger years.  But overall, when looking at this signing as the player that we hope can replace Mbenga and play some spot minutes on occasion, I think it’s a very good pick up.

So, we’re now at the point where the Lakers roster is nearly (if not already) complete.  After the Lakers ink their two 2nd round draft picks, they’ll have 13 players under contract – which is the same number that the team carried last year.  I will say, though, do not discount a return of Shannon Brown.  With Walton’s back injury looming and the want to reduce some of Kobe’s workload (he did play nearly 3 more minutes a night this past season than in 2009), bringing back the guard that actually backed up #24 isn’t a far fetched idea.  I understand that Sasha or Barnes could fill that role, but those aren’t gurantees especially with Sasha’s tendency to reside in Phil’s doghouse and Barnes’ (aforementioned) turnover issues.  We’ll see how this develops, though.  In the meantime, it’s time to celebrate again Lakers fans as this team just got better…again.  Saying that never gets old either.

We’re in the dog days of Summer and the Lakers roster is not yet full.  Rarely will a championship squad have a camp invite make its team, so at some point in the next few weeks we can expect the Lakers to add the additional pieces to fill out the roster that it will take into next season.  We’ve been discussing the potential names that the Lakers could potentially pick up ad nauseam so let’s not rehash them now.  However, the question still remains – who will be the other guys that make up the Lakers?

Sadly, the answer to that question isn’t an easy one.  Recently, there have been many names linked to the Lakers but none have actually decided to latch on to a ready made championship team.  Raja Bell.  Matt Barnes.  Even Jeremy Lin.  All of these guys have been discussed as options and all of them are likely to be on another team’s roster next season.  But why?  I mean, why wouldn’t a player – whether a veteran or a youngster – want to join a team where he could potentially win a championship, play with fantastic teammates, be coached by Phil Jackson, all while living in Los Angeles?

The answer is quite simple, actually.

Money and minutes.  These are things that matter to free agents and the Lakers don’t have enough of either to really offer any new addition.

From a money standpoint, the Lakers still have the remaining portion of their mid-level exception – approximately 1.7 million – and still have the ability to sign players for the veteran’s minimum.  However, salaries starting at less than 2 million dollars aren’t exactly the most popular thing going right now.  We all know that the Lakers are looking for another wing and a big man, but look at what the guys that play these positions (and were essentially some of the last serviceable players on the market) are signing for right now.  Matt Barnes – before a salary cap miscalculation – was about to sign with Toronto for 4.5 million a year.  Raja Bell signed for 10 million over 3 seasons.  Brad Miller signed for 15 million over 3 years (though the 3rd year is only partially guaranteed).  CJ Watson just got offered a 2 year, 6.5 million dollar contract by the Bulls and will be signed and traded by the Warriors to Chicago.  What do all these guys have in common besides being good fits for the Lakers that will be playing for other teams next year?  They’ll all be making double (or more) what the Lakers could offer them after they inked Steve Blake to his 4 year/16 million dollar deal.  Essentially, the Lakers were never going to get any of these guys because their price tags were too high.

And what about from a minutes standpoint?  Well, it’s not much rosier for players looking at the Lakers from that side of the equation either.  When looking at every position, the Lakers just don’t have a lot of minutes available for any new player.  At point guard, the Lakers are looking at a combo of Fisher and Blake.  Any minutes that they don’t play will likely go to Sasha ( or if Shannon Brown returns, he could play these minutes).  At shooting guard, the Lakers are more than set with Kobe playing anywhere between 30-40 minutes in every game that’s not a blowout and the remaining minutes will go to Sasha (or again, if Shannon returns those minutes will be his or we could even see Artest play some minutes at SG).  At SF, there’s Artest who will sop up those same 30-40 minutes that Kobe plays at SG with it very likely that Kobe will be the primary back up at SF if Walton isn’t healthy next year.  If Walton is healthy enough to play he’ll cut into Ron/Kobe’s minutes at SF and if Ebanks develops at a reasonable rate he may even see some minutes next year.  At PF and C, the Lakers will go with their typical rotation of Gasol, Bynum, and Odom.  You know, the front court that has helped lead the team to back to back championships.  When looking at the Lakers’ rotation, where will the minutes come from?  During blowouts?  If an injury happens?  With the hope that Phil cuts back on the court time of Kobe and/or Artest?  While some of these things are possible and others may even be likely, it’s not like there’s a guarantee of firm playing time out there.

So really, who’s going to join the Lakers with no set in stone commitment to minutes and with a starting salary that any team can offer?  That’s the real question here.  And the answer is one that so far isn’t easy to decipher.  I mean, even Jeremy Lin saw the potential squeeze on both the money and minutes side when the Lakers couldn’t guarantee as much of his first year salary should he get cut and the Warriors have an opening at back up point guard.  This is why, at least from my perspective, the prospects of Shannon Brown and/or Mbenga/Powell  coming back increase by the day.  These are guys that have established roles with the team and may eye a return if the market doesn’t warm up for them.  In the end though, whoever signs on with the Lakers for the final two or three spots on the roster will have to face the stark reality that they’re sure to be low salaried players that may not see much court time.  And when us fans look at the situation that way, we may want to readjust our mindset about who will be joining the team before training camp.

Welcome to FB&G’s first attempt at a mailbag.  Thanks to all of you that submitted questions.  If you’d like to submit a question for future installments just send me an email and put “mailbag question” in the subject line.  Here we go…

Do you see a possibility of Phil sliding into a Tex Winter type role after next year?  Come in during training camp and a couple times during the season to help out and tweak things.  Or is the personality going to be so strong and Shaw still trying to establish himself that it would be a bad idea?  Or at least not the first year of Shaw being the head man.  But the second year.  Phil had no problem acknowledging that Tex mentored him right from the get go.  It’d be an interesting proposition.

-Chownoir

While I think Phil will have some sort of role with the Lakers after he’s finished coaching, I don’t think he’ll be a “Tex Winter” type of advisor to Brian Shaw.  Remember, Tex was very visible in practices and behind the bench and his voice was heard consistently while his health permitted him to be part of the team.  I hope that Phil would make himself available as a resource to Shaw (assuming Brian is the man chosen to replace Phil), but I think those communications would happen behind the scenes, not in practices or in training camp.  In the end, I think Phil taking too active a role after his retirement from coaching would be a bit of a conflict for the players and could potentially undermine Shaw’s role as the head man.  Remember too that by the end of next season, Shaw will have just completed his 6th season as an assistant to Jackson.  He’ll likely have learned as much as possible from Phil in terms of schemes and tactics and it will then be up to Shaw to take what he’s learned and incorporate that into his own coaching style.  From everything I’ve read, Shaw has the respect and ear of the players so his message should be well received.  It’s just a matter of his message and guidance then producing results.  And while I have confidence in Shaw as a head man, we’ll see how he does when that day comes.

If Ron Artest plays at more or less the same level as he did in Game 7, is any team going to be able to beat the Lakers if they stay healthy?

-Marv

If Ron plays at his game 7 level, no, the Lakers can’t be beaten with an otherwise healthy roster.  That said, I don’t think the Lakers are going to get that type of performance consistently from Ron.  In that game, Ron not only played excellent defense (which is a given) but his jumper was falling (for the most part) and he was making the type of instinctive basketball plays – at least on offense - that he hadn’t for most of the year.  Playing at that level consistently is difficult when the opportunities are packaged to fit a role player.  What I mean by that is, in game 7 Ron took 18 shots which was his high FGA for the season and in the future, I think he’ll still be slotted behind Kobe, Pau, and Bynum and will have to continue to try and do more with less.  However, I do believe that Ron will improve in future seasons and we’ll see better efficiency in his shooting numbers and a greater understanding of how to play within the Triangle.  That may not equate to a “game 7 level  performance” all the time, but I think we’ll see less extremes in performance where Artest gains consistency.  Which, in the end, will mean an even stronger Lakers team.

There has been a movement throughout the NBA to look past traditional statistics and look deeper into what the numbers mean. Many teams are adopting ABPRMetrics, such  as the Rockets, Mavs, Nuggetsand Trailblazers, even going as far as to employ a statistician on staff. Then there are teams that are “old school” and rely almost solely on the word of scouts. Which camp do the Lakers fall into, or is it somewhere in between?

-Phil

From everything I’ve read, the Lakers have yet to fully embrace the “Moneyball” movement in Basketball.  But, this shouldn’t be surprising considering the philosophy of Phil Jackson’s coaching style.  Phil teaches a specific system that isn’t about statistical value but rather how pieces fit to form a team.  From an outsiders perspective, Phil’s approach is one where the team is  a living, breathing organism that must find a way to function together in a way where stat driven lineups don’t matter as much as the decision making as a group being on the same page with the results produced being dependent on the team seeing the same picture while on the court together.  And while I think there is merit to looking at advanced stats or adjusted plus/minus to seek out trends and what helps or hurts a team, I also think there is value in things that can’t be measured by stats.  A great example of this would be the debate about whether Fisher or Farmar should have been the starting PG this season.  All the advanced stats showed Farmar to be the more effective player on both offense and defense and that the team performed just as well, if not better when Farmar played with the player combinations that Fisher played the majority of his minutes with.  However, what the stats didn’t measure was Fisher’s propensity to hit the big shots, organize the offense in a way where the best players got more touches, or how his leadership helped stabilize the team in moments where it was needed most.  I do think as advanced stats become more common place in the NBA, more teams will embrace them as a tool, but I think there will always be a place for making coaching decisions without the influence of numbers and by following a “gut feeling” or by judging a situation based off how the pieces “fit” from a chemistry standpoint rather than a pure production one.

How long will Bynum be out at the start of the season? How long does a full recovery take?  Since Kobe’s taking time off from playing for the first time in years, will all his various ailments be 100% come the start of the season?  I know it’s for developmental players, but the triangle is so hard to learn and fit into for most players, would it make sense for Blake to get some burn in the summer league?  Thanks, love the site.

-SS

We’ll take these in order.  First, I think Bynum will be fully recovered by the time that the season starts.  Estimates on recovery time are from anywhere from 2-4 weeks (Brandon Roy came back in less than two weeks these past playoffs), so I think if Bynum has his surgery by the end of this month, he’ll be ready to go by the time training camp in underway in late September/early October.  Second, I think Kobe’s ailments will be as good to go as possible by the time the season starts.  However, understand that Kobe’s ailments aren’t the type that will magically go away.  His finger is arthritic and it may never be the same again.  He also has tendinitis in his knee and that is something he’ll have to deal with for the rest of his career.  All that said, Kobe’s shown a dedication to his body and physical conditioning that few others have and he’s consistently finding ways to be effective as his athleticism/physical peak decreases.  So, I’m confident that Kobe will be good to go and that he’ll definitely benefit from the time off.  As for Blake and Summer League, I just don’t see it happening.  Blake is a smart player and I trust that he’ll pick up the schemes rather quickly.  He’s known to be a student of the game and as a traditional Point Guard, a player that prides himself on being an extension of the coach on the floor.  So, while the nuance of playing in the Triangle can be something that takes time to learn, I think Blake will adapt well and be able to contribute rather quickly without much hesitation in where he needs to be within the confines of the Lakers’ sets.

Would you please provide a primer on seeing Summer League games in person?  I think I – and perhaps many others – are ready to take this next step to basketball geekdom.

-Rick

When looking at a team like the Lakers, I think the best way is to focus on the players that the Lakers have an investment in first (Ebanks, Carracter) and then see if anyone else stands out in any meaningful way.  I know that I’ll be focusing on the two Lakers rookies, but then I’ll also be paying special attention to Green and Kurz, just because of their past NBA experience and the fact that they have skill sets that the Lakers could use on their team.  All that said, when you have a championship roster (like the Lakers do) there’s little chance that any player from Summer League team is going to make any sort of meaningful impact during the regular season.  And while some of these guys may get a camp invite, most are likely using their time on the Lakers’ roster as an audition for other teams.  Remember, there are scouts and talent evaluators from every team at the Summer League’s and they’re all looking for that potential player that can come in and compete for a roster spot.  And while the Lakers may not be the team that takes a flyer on a player, another team may.

Did the lakers not try to sell the Bynum for Bosh deal?  Bynum is not going to last and we would be smart trying to deal him while he is young and has value. The lakers are in their last 3 year run starting now so a Bosh or top talent would make sense. You go for the gold now.

-Eric

With Bosh seemingly about to sign with the Heat, I thought this would be a good chance to put this Bosh/Bynum thing to rest for a while.  I’m unsure of how “real” these Bosh for Bynum rumors ever were.  From a media and fan standpoint, this was a deal that made sense and I know there was speculation about both sides being “open” to the deal.  However, from the standpoint of what we know about the Lakers I’m not sure this information being out there actually makes sense.  Just consider this one point – How often, in the past several seasons, have we heard about a Lakers trade from the media before it actually happened?  There weren’t any indications of the Gasol trade or the Shannon/Ammo trade.  So, I have a hard time believing that the Lakers were actually the ones making waves about acquiring Bosh as they’ve proven that these types of leaks don’t happen when they’re serious about making a deal. 

As for the assumption that Bynum is not built to last, as cliche as this sounds – only time will tell.  The early results don’t look extremely promising as Bynum has endured several injuries that have limited him over the last three seasons.  However, the flip side of that coin is that most of these injuries have been fluke-ish and I’m not convinced there’s a trend of injuries as much as there’s been a trend of bad luck.  I’d feel different is this were a Sam Bowie situation where the same foot problem cropped up year after year, but that’s not been the case with ‘Drew.  His knee injuries haven’t been of the same variety and both happened in ways where you could easily say he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Granted, this doesn’t erase the fact that he’s been injured and his future is cloudy in this regard.  But, I do think he’s a player worth holding onto based off his (still promising) upside and the role that he fills on this team as a defender/rebounder and a guy that also allows Gasol to play PF for the majority of his minutes.  Within the context of this team, I think the Lakers mix of big men is the perfect blend and Bynum is – figuratively and literally - a big part of that.

James and Wade seem to be players that operate best when they have the ball, and are clearly double-alpha guys.  Does it really make sense to have them on the same team, or does that dilute their individual value?  Will they be at odds over control of the team?

-Marv

Another question that is relevant with the Lebron about make his decision tomorrow.  I’m honestly a bit on the fence with this one.  I think there will be times that one of either Lebron or Wade would be frozen out of the offense as the other player tries to create in a way that’s most comfortable to him.  However, I’m a firm believer in great players finding ways to figure things out and there aren’t too many players better than James and Wade.  Also, I think both players understand the game and play with a level of unselfishness that would aid in any potential partnership.  Remember too, these guys have played together on All-Star teams and on Team USA for the past several years.  They understand each other’s games and would find ways to compliment each other.  I also think that both players would be able to add on to and improve their respective games so that they’d find an even better way to mesh as their careers advanced.  In the end, there could possibly be issues of “control” or “who takes the last shot”, but I think a lot of those issues could be worked out if the team is winning and if there are people in coaching/management strong enough to corral their egos and have them focus on the ultimate prize.  And again, I think with great players that’s easier than with ones who “think” they’re great but really aren’t that caliber of player.  Wade and Lebron are the goods.  I think they’d work it out.

In a week of waiting for Lakers fans, today is the day the entire league waits.  Today is the prelude to the free agent frenzy that teams have waited years for.  Stories about where Lebron, Wade, and Bosh would end up this Summer started circulating the day after they signed their short term deals back in the summer of 2006.  And now, big names like Dirk, Pierce, Amar’e, Boozer, and Joe Johnson have joined the party and are also high priority players that teams will look to add.  So when the clock strikes midnight on the east coast, the phone calls will begin and some of the league’s biggest stars will be courted and recruited and asked to changed teams (or stay with their current ones) to start their careers fresh with the goal of winning (and making a boatload of cash) at the front of everyone’s minds.

But the Lakers have their free agency questions as well.  They may not be looking at grabbing the big name to bolster their championship hopes – the rest of the league is trying to catch the Lakers in this regard – but they do have issues to work out in terms of their head coach, players to make decisions on, and a budget to look at when deciding what they plan to do in this summer of change.  So with all that in mind, let’s take a look at the Lakers situation on the eve of free agency.

What to do with your own free agents?
Here’s a quick review: The Lakers have six free agents. Farmar and Morrison are restricted free agents that the Lakers can either offer contract tenders or renounce their rights and turn into unrestricted free agents. Fisher, Powell, Mbenga, and Shannon will be unrestricted free agents that will be free to sign with whatever team offers them a contract once the clock strikes 12 tonight (9 on the west coast).

Now that we’re up to speed on the Lakers FA situation, the question is who stays and who goes. The only player that the front office has openly said they’d like to have back is Fisher. So, we can only assume that the Lakers will look to make a deal with Fish early in the process to make him a Laker for at least another year.

As for the other players, I would not be surprised to see them all on different teams next year. While Farmar and Brown have shown flashes and were solid contributors to the the Lakers in their two championship runs, they’re both players that are looking for more money and (for Farmar at least) bigger roles on whatever team they play for. I still think there’s a chance that Shannon comes back, but a lot of that will be determined by what offers he receives from other teams and what the Lakers are comfortable paying him beyond what he was slated to make next season had he not opted out. Sad to say, I expect both Mbenga and Powell to be on different teams next year. I liked both of these players for their hard working styles and positive attitudes, but both players are likely looking to provide more of a contribution than “practice player” and hope to see more playing time than they have in their tenure with the Lakers. Plus, money may be a factor as the Lakers drafted Derrick Carracter who, if he makes the team, could fill the same role that Powell or Mbenga provided the Lakers this past season.

So, by my calculations, the Lakers are likely to lose at least 5 of their free agents with the possibility that Brown and one of Powell/Mbenga (with Powell being the frontrunner) also returning. That means the Lakers have some holes to fill that were not addressed in the draft.

What free agents do the Lakers target?
If you haven’t done so already, you need to go read the posts that the K-Bros put together over at Land O’ Lakers on the free agent guards and front court players that the Lakers could be looking at as additions to the team. They’ve done their homework on this and have used solid criteria on paring down their list to reasonable and realistic options.

In my opinion, the Lakers will likely be looking to add at least one backcourt player and surely one frontcourt player in free agency. The key to these players will be their versatility and how many roles they can fill for a team that likes to has specific needs but still does have a lot of talent returning. For example, I think Steve Blake is a very good option for the Lakers as he can come in right away and play PG in relief or in place of Fisher (moving Fish to a back up role) and soak up 20-25 minutes a night of work at the point. I also think Raja Bell is a very good option for the Lakers as he’s a player that defends well, shoots the three at good clip, and can play SG and SF for sure, and may even be able to play some PG in the Triangle. Both Bell and Blake are practical players that make a lot of sense based off cost – neither should demand more than a portion of the mid-level exception, and Bell may even be a minimum salary player – and from the standpoint of their status as veteran, no nonsense players that are proven to be guys that only care about winning and playing their role the best way that they can. As for front court players, the names Kurt Thomas and Craig Smith are ones that I think would fit quite well with this particular group of Lakers. They too are hard working players that have proven their worth in this league and could contribute in part time roles.

However, there are sexier names out there – namely, Tracy McGrady and Mike Miller. Both of their names have been linked to the Lakers over the past few weeks as both have said that they’d like to join a “winner” and are willing to take pay cuts to do so. Personally, I like Miller much more than McGrady. Miller possesses an all-around game, is a great shooter, and has a pedigree as a performer that could really help the Lakers on the wing and in the back court. In certain situations, I could even see him as a primary ball handler on offense (a de facto PG) while defending wings and having another player (Sasha?) defend the opposing teams’ point man. But, realistically this is a pipe dream. Miller is still a serviceable player that could help a lot of teams at both SG and SF. He’s a starting caliber player that would maybe see 20 minutes a night from the Lakers. There’s a dollar value on those types of players and, for a tax paying team like the Lakers, it’s less than the mid-level that Miller could demand from several other teams. As for T-Mac, I’d be okay if he signed for the minimum, but would not want the Lakers to pay any more than that. He’s injury prone and would be making a big adjustment from being the player with the ball in his hands a great deal to the player that spots up and slashes from the weakside. How well he’d fit in that role is a mystery, but for a cheap price, I’d be willing to find out.

So much still depends on Phil’s decision.
Despite everything that’s been said in the above paragraphs, the biggest free agent of them all is Phil Jackson. The Lakers are a different team without him at the helm and if he doesn’t return it’s a step backwards for the Lakers franchise. This entire roster is built for the Triangle and has been groomed to play in that system. So, while it’s nice to discuss if Blake, Bell, T-Mac, or Miller are the next Lakers, the bigger question is if Phil will remain one. We should know the answer to that question on Friday, but this really is the biggest decision of them all. Here’s hoping that Phil gives it one last run and that he can come to an agreement with Dr. Buss to coach the Lakers at least one more year and try to lead this team to a third straight championship.