"Lakers Are Favored to Win It All in 2009"

seccom · Post #21 » by **seccom** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:15 pm

Lakers may also have HCA next time around. With Gasol, Lakers was on pace to win 65 games. With Bynum, adding 3 to 4 games is not that hard to believe.

GuyClinch · Post #22 » by **GuyClinch** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:37 pm

I wouldn't count on HCA for the Lakers. What you might not know is that the C's tanked a bunch of games at the end after they had secured it throughout the playoffs. They actually played their entire bench and none of their starters for a few games. They could have won 70 if they were in race.

Pete

DEEP3CL · Post #23 » by **DEEP3CL** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:37 pm

Hey ParticleMan and bonsaiflipflops you guys are some very respectable dudes both of your post were very clear and thoughtful. All things being told we do have some things to correct first before we can start talking about even getting to the Finals again. The West is going to be a dog fight again and most importantly we have to avoid key injuries, the ones that have you miss 15 to 20 something games.

And your right ParticleMan, Bynum is no where near close to All-Star level yet but with hard work which the guys does he could be one sooner then anyone thinks.The guy has heart remember the Shaq issue ? I don't think many guys ever challenged the Big Fella like that, in fact during the time he was in LA I never seen anybody do it.

As far as adding new guys like maybe Artest it's going to be difficult because of the cap numbers and all. The only way that it happens with little difficulty is if Artest opt out. As a fan I hope it can happen we just have to wait and see.

DEEP3CL · Post #24 » by **DEEP3CL** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:42 pm

GuyClinch wrote:I wouldn't count on HCA for the Lakers. What you might not know is that the C's tanked a bunch of games at the end after they had secured it throughout the playoffs. They actually played their entire bench and none of their starters for a few games. They could have won 70 if they were in race.

Pete

True but I wouldn't worry about having HCA anyway. Our issues have more to do with physicality. Which in my opinion is a key component for any champion. The Celtics had it. In reality all you have to do is put it together real solid one time in the Finals with the 2-3-2.

HCA is only important more so just for our sake in the conference.

GuyClinch · Post #25 » by **GuyClinch** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:10 pm

You DO realize that Artest is under contract with the Kings right? Why in god's name would they send him to their arch rivals? Not every team is as dumb as Memphis.

Pete

TonyMontana · Post #26 » by **TonyMontana** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:21 pm

pballa wrote:i hope they dont get another great trade and give up odom for artest or something

Seeing how Mitch pulled that trade, Maybe we can get Artest for Luke and a box of twinkees with a glass of milk............... DO IT MITCH. :kiss

Rocky5000 · Post #27 » by **Rocky5000** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:05 pm

GuyClinch wrote:You DO realize that Artest is under contract with the Kings right? Why in god's name would they send him to their arch rivals? Not every team is as dumb as Memphis.

Pete

Exactly, and when you add in the fact that Artest has said that he's happy and wants to play out his contract in Sacremento, all signs point to Artest to LA being just a pipe dream.

Bynum will make them better but not good enough to get by without playing any defense.

spf211 · Post #28 » by **spf211** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:45 pm

I honestly think if the Lakers had homecourt in the Finals this year the series would have been done in 5 games -- this year homecourt was not an advantage for the home team in Game 2 and Game 4. They would have split the first two games in LA and the Lakers would not win in Boston.

Gant · Post #29 » by **Gant** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:49 am

The Celtics match up really well with LA Bynum or no Bynum. Don't forget, the Celtics played with three injured starters in the Finals. Next time around if the Lakers get there, they won't be so lucky. Healthy Perkins shuts down Bynum (he did it twice this season). Rondo will be a lot better. Garnett will still be on Gasol and no one will be able to handle Pierce.

Goodnight LA.

eatyourchildren · Post #30 » by **eatyourchildren** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:18 am

Lakers are favored because in the history of the NBA, repeating has typically been bad odds. duh.

eatyourchildren · Post #31 » by **eatyourchildren** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:21 am

Gant wrote:The Celtics match up really well with LA Bynum or no Bynum. Don't forget, the Celtics played with three injured starters in the Finals. Next time around if the Lakers get there, they won't be so lucky. Healthy Perkins shuts down Bynum (he did it twice this season). Rondo will be a lot better. Garnett will still be on Gasol and no one will be able to handle Pierce.

Goodnight LA.

With Gasol, the Lakers don't need his scoring as much as they did in the regular season v. the Celtics. Do you also mean that healthy Perkins shuts down Bynum on the boards and on defense? Gasol at the 4, if shoots his FT line jumper at a decent clip, would be a bit tougher on the Celtics defense than Gasol at the 5 would be, I imagine.

Pierce was and still remains the Laker's biggest concern. Hopefully we stop playing Radman.

meatball sub · Post #32 » by **meatball sub** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:26 am

The only hope the Lakers have of stopping P2 is if they somehow acquire Ron Artest. He's about the only guy I recall being able to guard Pierce on a consistent basis.

Post #33 » by **ParticleMan** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:08 am

Artest isn't an elite defender anymore, imo. Maybe it's just because he's been playing on crappy ass Sacto teams, he isn't trying, but in the past couple of years I haven't been impressed with Artest on D, at least not as much as when he was younger. I think LA will get frustrated with his poor shot selection and inconsitent effort, unless he turns those things around. Maybe he would. And of course there is always the Artest Implosion possibility.

Everyone killed LO for his performance in the finals but I think if he were matched up against Pierce he would actually look OK. Garnett was not a good matchup for LO. And Gasol actually plays better against KG than Perk, since he doesn't like contact.

The addition of Bynum really changes the dynamic of the whole Laker team. I still think we can beat them, but I'm not 100% sure of it like I was in this Finals.

sam_I_am · Post #34 » by **sam_I_am** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:13 am

I think Bynum may be a fine player if he returns healthy. I just wouldn't count on a 22 year old to be the difference between winning a championship and getting blasted in game 6.

The Lakers need grissled veterans who know how to sacrifice on the court in order to win. What they don't need is a young player in a contract year trying to prove he is a max salary dude.

Bynum will help a lot. Artest would help a lot more. He could be the Dennis Rodman of this era in terms of resurrecting his career after it was derailed by looniness.

GuyClinch · Post #35 » by **GuyClinch** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:16 pm

Lakers are favored because in the history of the NBA, repeating has typically been bad odds. duh.

Right. Just like how the C's had bad odd's to win the second round because the first round had gone seven. I think it never happened according to ESPN. And then they had bad odds to win the ECF because they had gone to seven in each of the first two series. And then they had bad odds to win the finals because the Lakers had gone what 12-3 in the postseason up into then while the C's had gone 12-6..

This are DUMB statistics that people (ESPN) are throwing out. As I said before in many threads - past performance is no guarantee of future results. We even had one Celtic "fan" guaranteeing that if we lost at home (to Detroit) we wouldn't win on the road and would automatically lose the series. <g>

All those prior statistics are created by different teams at different times and often are interesting coincidences. It's a good things the C's didn't buy into them and mail in game six.

Pete

Post #36 » by **ParticleMan** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:33 pm

sam_I_am wrote:I think Bynum may be a fine player if he returns healthy. I just wouldn't count on a 22 year old to be the difference between winning a championship and getting blasted in game 6.

what about the difference between blowing a 24 point lead at home and not? could bynum make that much of a difference? i think so. and if so, it's 3-2 lakers headed to boston, and they're feeling pretty good about themselves.

my point is, we weren't THAT much better than the Lakers. we weren't 39 points better. Game 6 was one of the best moments ever, but i'm not crazy enough to think that that was representative of the series. it wasn't a sweep, it was 4-2. and by far the biggest hole for the lakers was rebounding and defense, and interior toughness. bynum is a HUGE improvement for them in all that. not because he's so great, but because they don't have anyone else. the next closest guy who gives them that is chris friggin mihm.

Kobe_not_MJ · Post #37 » by **Kobe_not_MJ** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:50 pm

There are certainly lots of ifs, ands, and buts about the Lakers. I think we all know that Kobe will NEVER be Jordan (see my user name!). But if they get Bynum back at 100% and he plays like he did before he got hurt, look out. With Bynum, the Lakers will have a pair of seven footers and the 6-10 Lamar Odom, who will become their fourth option offensively (you gotta admit, not a bad fourth option). Bynum also shut down Tim Duncan in a game this year, holding him to 5 points and 5 rebounds. Pretty good. Out west, also look out for San Antonio, New Orleans, and Portland.

eatyourchildren · Post #38 » by **eatyourchildren** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 6:51 pm

GuyClinch wrote:
Lakers are favored because in the history of the NBA, repeating has typically been bad odds. duh.

Right. Just like how the C's had bad odd's to win the second round because the first round had gone seven. I think it never happened according to ESPN. And then they had bad odds to win the ECF because they had gone to seven in each of the first two series. And then they had bad odds to win the finals because the Lakers had gone what 12-3 in the postseason up into then while the C's had gone 12-6..

This are DUMB statistics that people (ESPN) are throwing out. As I said before in many threads - past performance is no guarantee of future results. We even had one Celtic "fan" guaranteeing that if we lost at home (to Detroit) we wouldn't win on the road and would automatically lose the series. <g>

All those prior statistics are created by different teams at different times and often are interesting coincidences. It's a good things the C's didn't buy into them and mail in game six.

Pete

Okay. Then put money on them to repeat. Like your entire savings.

Kefa461 · Post #39 » by **Kefa461** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:47 pm

Whatever gets you thru the night....... 8-)

GreenGrizz · Post #40 » by **GreenGrizz** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:13 am

Hey, guys, Cleveland and Atlanta played tougher against us. I am not sure how the Lakers can be better next year. I still think they lucked out until they saw us. They beat Denver while Melo was already in trouble with the law. They beat Utah not a great play-off team. They beat San Antonio that didn't look like the one you saw before.