# Is Kareem Rush finally becoming a decent player?



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

Yea, it's only his 2nd year but the last couple of games has shown he has improved. He's been in double figures in most of the last couple of games and is finally showing what he's capable of on offense. What do you guys think?


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Granted he's been playing great.. Needs to keep it up though


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Kareem is too unpredictable, some nights hell be absolutely on fire, and some hell just stink up a storm... I dont think he can ever be a superstar, or their number one option of the bench, but ill ay he averages eh...... 7 ppg at the end of the season... even tho this game gave his numbers a huge boost...


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

But good player tho dont get me wrong...


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

na


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Rush actually seems to be one of the more consistent players on the Lakers. If Kobe were to leave next season, Kareem could average double figures in scoring. I'd say he's got the potential to put up Cuttino Mobley-like numbers of 16ppg, 4rpg and 3apg sometime in his career.

Kareem is a very good player, and he'll only get better with more PT. He's now averaging 5.6ppg on the year, and as SacKings said...he'll probably finish this season around 7ppg. He's instant offense off of the bench, and he just knows how to score.

The great thing about him is that he doesn't need to rely on other people to create shots for him, like Fisher, George and Cook do. He has a very nice fadeaway shot, he's a good finisher around the hoop and he can get to the basket.


----------



## h8breed (Jun 25, 2003)

i think in a few years he can become a decent shooter but like a second option at most....he hasnt become a decent player in my mind...but for the lakers hes getting to be one of the more stronger ones off the bench behind slava and derek


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> Rush actually seems to be one of the more consistent players on the Lakers.


Either you're kidding or the Lakers' bench suck more air than I thought. 

A 30 pt game followed by a 10, 18, 5, and 18 is not consistent anyway you fudge it. And he either shoots over 50% FG or below 40% for each game. Rush is basically a more inconsistent version of Mike Miller. It's no wonder two guys dropped him from my fantasy league in the span of a week.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

wow a fantasy team, who cares, Rush has been the most consistent one 
Gary doesnt Count cause he is gary 
George has been Awful Lately tonight was ok
slava still cant play defence
russell cant hit the back board in the same place twice
bcook has played decent
walton has played few minutes
sampson played ok in his one start
fisher has also played ok except for his 7 second hail mary 
still Rush is Making Shots on A Consistent Bases


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>longlivelal</b>!
> wow a fantasy team, who cares, Rush has been the most consistent one
> Gary doesnt Count cause he is gary
> George has been Awful Lately tonight was ok
> ...



So in other words, the bench sucks. Ok, I get it.


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> So in other words, the bench sucks. Ok, I get it.


No the bench doesnt suck, thank you very much!


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Brian34Cook</b>!
> 
> 
> No the bench doesnt suck, thank you very much!


Now, I'm confused. Why do some Laker fans insist that they do? Oh whatever.

The bench players just help the team lose four out of five. Maybe that's good enough for you guys. Fine with me.


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

Kareem is improving, I don't think there's any doubt about that, but he's soooooooooooo soft it ain't even funny. And that's going keep him from being any more than a decent-to-good player.


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> 
> Now, I'm confused. Why do some Laker fans insist that they do? Oh whatever.
> 
> The bench players just help the team lose four out of five. Maybe that's good enough for you guys. Fine with me.


Look I'm not saying they are the best but they surely arent the worst bench in the league..


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Brian34Cook</b>!
> 
> 
> Look I'm not saying they are the best but they surely arent the worst bench in the league..


Far from it. It's actually a pretty good bench. This idea that the Lakers should be winning all of these game with their bench is ridiculous. How many benches call pull out wins against the likes of Dallas and Sacramento on the road? The fact that we've been competitive in most of these games with out bench tells me that it is pretty good. Is it the best bench in the league? No. Sacramento probably has the best bench in the league. However, that strong bench has yet to win them an NBA championship. Hell they haven't even been to the Finals yet. In fact, they've only been to the WCF once in the last 4 years, despite having a great bench. At the end of the day the Lakers still have 4 HOFs and 2 top 5 players, something the Kings don't have. If the Lakers win this year it will be because of the 4 HOFs, not the bench. If the Lakers lose it will be because the 4 HOFs didn't play well or didn't play at all.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> The bench players just help the team lose four out of five. Maybe that's good enough for you guys. Fine with me.


I'm sorry, but that is just an idiotic statement. 

Good luck finding a bench in the league that, along with Gary Payton can beat the Mavericks and Kings on the road.

Stop letting your bias get in the way from you making intelligent comments.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but that is just an idiotic statement.
> ...


Let me guess...you have never said anything unintelligent in your whole life right?


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> 
> 
> Now, I'm confused. Why do some Laker fans insist that they do? Oh whatever.
> ...


IM SORRY, DO YOU SEE ANY OTHER OPTIONS


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!
> 
> 
> Let me guess...you have never said anything unintelligent in your whole life right?


AS A PERSONAL FRIEND OF HIS, TRUST ME HE HAS 
SORRY *****


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Stop letting your bias get in the way from you making intelligent comments.


Umm it wasnt jsut Sacramento and Dallas, it was also Phoenix and Memphis... Phoenix, the worst team in the west btw...


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>longlivelal</b>!
> 
> 
> IM SORRY, DO YOU SEE ANY OTHER OPTIONS


Of course. You don't pair an old bench with old starters, that's one of the big no-nos when building a team. The Lakers could have had Stephen Jackson instead of Russell, Brian Skinner instead of Grant, Leandrinho Barbosa instead of Brian Cook. Imagine what the Lakers would have been like if even one of the above three moves were made. Furthermore, they had the chance at Tyshaun Prince, Nenad Kristic, or Frank Williams but passed them up. 

If Geoff Petrie was running that team, he wouldn't have touched those bench guys (save for Luke Walton and Fisher) with a ten foot pole equipped with a proton shield. Our respective team's GM is the reason the Kings have deep bench and the Lakers don't; and the reason the Kings will remain competitive for years to come and the Lakers will be a balance sheet nightmare by 2005. 

But I guess there is always Charles Barkley and Mark Jackson ready to step in.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course. You don't pair an old bench with old starters, that's one of the big no-nos when building a team. The Lakers could have had Stephen Jackson instead of Russell, Brian Skinner instead of Grant, Leandrinho Barbosa instead of Brian Cook. Imagine what the Lakers would have been like if even one of the above three moves were made. Furthermore, they had the chance at Tyshaun Prince, Nenad Kristic, or Frank Williams but passed them up.
> ...


Yes, because we all know planning for 2005 works out well most of the time, right? So I guess picking up Ron Harper, Horace Grant, and all those old dudes back in day to win 3 titles was just idiotic, right? Oh and how I wish we had gotten Barbosa at the point, Payton is done after this year (funny, Kings fans were saying it was this year...). Ask the Magic, they know how planning for 2005 works out. 

Face it, the Lakers have been collecting old, triangle oriented players the last 4 years and have 3 titles to show for it. The Kings have acquired young, athletic players the last 4 years or so and have....Pacific Division banners to show for it. Oh joy! :laugh:


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> Yes, because we all know planning for 2005 works out well most of the time, right? So I guess picking up Ron Harper, Horace Grant, and all those old dudes back in day to win 3 titles was just idiotic, right? Oh and how I wish we had gotten Barbosa at the point, Payton is done after this year (funny, Kings fans were saying it was this year...). Ask the Magic, they know how planning for 2005 works out.
> 
> Face it, the Lakers have been collecting old, triangle oriented players the last 4 years and have 3 titles to show for it. The Kings have acquired young, athletic players the last 4 years or so and have....Pacific Division banners to show for it. Oh joy! :laugh:


Back in the days, Grant and Ron Harper were not one hairline away from a Viagra endorsment. Laker fans like to remind us of what we don't care and of little relevance -- the past. All I know is, the Lakers couldn't get past the 2nd round last year with those old guys and so this year they signed even older guys. And they are now facing an uphill battle to get back into the mix -- with the old men on the injured list of course. 

You sound like you are disagreeing with me simply for the sake of... disagreeing with me. Malone and Payton are as triangle-oriented as Slava Medvedenko. As for Payton, if he wins a ring, he will opt out and sign with another team for more $$. If he doesn't win it, he will opt out and sign with another contender. Barbosa is the big and athletic guard that the Triangle is insisting. 

But then again, there is nothing wrong with showing no regard for the future. If that's how you approach building a team, EHL, fine with me. It seems to be Mitch's philosophy as well.


----------



## IanMFCFirPark85 (Dec 8, 2003)

I'm very pleased with Rush's progress. He's under a huge amount of pressure at the moment as are all the young Lakers with the absense of 3 of the Laker's version of Mount Rushmore. I think he's definitely benifiting from more playing time, as is Slava. Although Rush will never challenge Kobe for the starting SG spot when both are fit, Kareem can still be a good fill-in if Kobe's having an off-night.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IanMFCFirPark85</b>!
> I'm very pleased with Rush's progress. He's under a huge amount of pressure at the moment as are all the young Lakers with the absense of 3 of the Laker's version of Mount Rushmore. I think he's definitely benifiting from more playing time, as is Slava. Although Rush will never challenge Kobe for the starting SG spot when both are fit, Kareem can still be a good fill-in if Kobe's having an off-night.


Kareem's primary role will never be to serve as Kobe's backup. He'll only play a few minutes in that capacity. He's going to play some of Kobe and Payton's leftover minutes. He'll play additional minutes when George leaves the game. Sometimes RUssell and Fox will come in at SF and sometimes Kobe will slide over to SF and let Rush play SG. Rush will probably always play SG while the players around him switch positions. That is the only way we are going to be able to get him ample playing time. If Fisher continues to play like crap, I can certainly envision Rush playing 15-20 minutes a night. He's taller, quicker, and a better shooter than Fisher is. Fisher brings toughness and defensive intensity to the table but his shot is, well.....shot, and his slow feet are killing us on the defensive end. I hope Rush is the first guy to come off the bench. I think Fox and Russell can be rotated at SF. I'd go with the hot hand. George should start only because of his athleticism and defense. We won't need to worry about his scoring when the "Big 4" return. Slava should be the first big man off the bench. He can fill in for Shaq at the 5 or Malone at the 4. Grant should only play when both Malone and Shaq are on the bench. Cook and Walton will probably only play in garbage time this year. PJ will never give a rookie too much playing time.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course. You don't pair an old bench with old starters, that's one of the big no-nos when building a team. The Lakers could have had Stephen Jackson instead of Russell, Brian Skinner instead of Grant, Leandrinho Barbosa instead of Brian Cook. Imagine what the Lakers would have been like if even one of the above three moves were made. Furthermore, they had the chance at Tyshaun Prince, Nenad Kristic, or Frank Williams but passed them up.
> ...


:laugh: Ok, Sure


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> 
> 
> Back in the days, Grant and Ron Harper were not one hairline away from a Viagra endorsment. Laker fans like to remind us of what we don't care and of little relevance -- the past. All I know is, the Lakers couldn't get past the 2nd round last year with those old guys and so this year they signed even older guys. And they are now facing an uphill battle to get back into the mix -- with the old men on the injured list of course.
> ...


The Lakers future hinges on Bryant's decision this Summer. If he opts out, the Lakers will likely sign a couple of veterans and try to win one last championship with Shaq, Malone, and Payton. If not, the Lakers will continue to draft players to surround Bryant with for the future. Shaq's contract is going to expire in a few years so you'll see the team shift it's focus towards Kobe rather than Shaq. It's not like we're burying ourselves in long-term contracts or anything. Believe it or not, almost every contract on this team will expire after the 2005-2006 season. If we don't re-sign anyone we'll basically have Kobe and millions of dollars in cap room to sign FAs. The future looks pretty good if you ask me.


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> The Lakers future hinges on Bryant's decision this Summer. If he opts out, the Lakers will likely sign a couple of veterans and try to win one last championship with Shaq, Malone, and Payton. If not, the Lakers will continue to draft players to surround Bryant with for the future. Shaq's contract is going to expire in a few years so you'll see the team shift it's focus towards Kobe rather than Shaq. It's not like we're burying ourselves in long-term contracts or anything. Believe it or not, almost every contract on this team will expire after the 2005-2006 season. If we don't re-sign anyone we'll basically have Kobe and millions of dollars in cap room to sign FAs. The future looks pretty good if you ask me.


As of now, the Lakers have only four players signed through 2005, and it is already eating up $41 millions. If Kobe comes on board (around $17 mil likely) then it's $58 millions for 5 players... and they still need a starting PF and six bench guys. When I said balance sheet nightmare, I mean exactly that.

Plus, after 2005-06, the Lakers have to deal with Shaq. I can't wait for the day the Lakers sign Shaq to a multi-year deal. Can you say Shawn Kemp part II?

But the problem is, if the Lakers sign Kobe and let Shaq goes, they basically becomes the next Orlando Magic. If they sign Kobe and Shaq, they don't have enough money to attract good FAs. But of course, they can always try to convince John Stockton to un-retire.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> Plus, after 2005-06, the Lakers have to deal with Shaq. I can't wait for the day the Lakers sign Shaq to a multi-year deal. Can you say Shawn Kemp part II?
> 
> But the problem is, if the Lakers sign Kobe and let Shaq goes, they basically becomes the next Orlando Magic. If they sign Kobe and Shaq, they don't have enough money to attract good FAs. But of course, they can always try to convince John Stockton to un-retire.



Here is the thing. I don't think that the Lakers are going to give Shaq an extension, especially now. Buss might have been considering it a year ago but Shaq is starting to break down once again. The most disconcerting thing is that he's in better shape now than he was a year ago. I think these nagging foot injuries are going to plague him for the rest of his career, no matter how much weight he loses. I think we steer clear of that 3yr/$90 mill extension or whatever it is. Shaq is probably going to retire in a few years anyways. That will leave us with Kobe and a few young guys. You might argue that we'll be in the same boat is Philly, Boston, and Orlando. That is, a team that revolves around one superstar and has no championship aspirations. However, the biggest difference is that we'll have more cap room than they currently do. Philly is at the point where they can only trade contracts. Same with Bston. Orlando is strapped because of Grant Hill's contract. On the other hand, the Lakers will have atleast $25-30 million in cap room to spend on FAs if they don't re-sign any of their veterans. Shaq will be gone. Malone will be gone. Payton will be gone. Fisher will be gone. Fox will be gone. All that will be left is Kobe and $$$. It shouldn't be difficult to attract FAs either. There will no Phil Jackson, no triangle. Just warm weather, sun, $$$, and a chance to play with a top 5 player. LA will be back sooner than you think.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the thing. I don't think that the Lakers are going to give Shaq an extension, especially now. Buss might have been considering it a year ago but Shaq is starting to break down once again. The most disconcerting thing is that he's in better shape now than he was a year ago. I think these nagging foot injuries are going to plague him for the rest of his career, no matter how much weight he loses. I think we steer clear of that 3yr/$90 mill extension or whatever it is. Shaq is probably going to retire in a few years anyways. That will leave us with Kobe and a few young guys. You might argue that we'll be in the same boat is Philly, Boston, and Orlando. That is, a team that revolves around one superstar and has no championship aspirations. However, the biggest difference is that we'll have more cap room than they currently do. Philly is at the point where they can only trade contracts. Same with Bston. Orlando is strapped because of Grant Hill's contract. On the other hand, the Lakers will have atleast $25-30 million in cap room to spend on FAs if they don't re-sign any of their veterans. Shaq will be gone. Malone will be gone. Payton will be gone. Fisher will be gone. Fox will be gone. All that will be left is Kobe and $$$. It shouldn't be difficult to attract FAs either. There will no Phil Jackson, no triangle. Just warm weather, sun, $$$, and a chance to play with a top 5 player. LA will be back sooner than you think.


I AGREE


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> 
> 
> Back in the days, Grant and Ron Harper were not one hairline away from a Viagra endorsment. Laker fans like to remind us of what we don't care and of little relevance -- the past. All I know is, the Lakers couldn't get past the 2nd round last year with those old guys and so this year they signed even older guys. And they are now facing an uphill battle to get back into the mix -- with the old men on the injured list of course.


You make it sound as if "the past" has no bearing on the future. Is this honestly the best argument you can come up with? "The past" means nothing? 

Boy, I'm sure glad you cleared that up, I was beginning to think that Kings fans were using the 2002 WCF as proof that they can hang with the Lakers today. Oh wait.... 



> You sound like you are disagreeing with me simply for the sake of... disagreeing with me. Malone and Payton are as triangle-oriented as Slava Medvedenko.


Yeah, and the 2003-2004 versions of Malone and Payton are exactly like 2000-2001 versions of Harper and Grant. I mean really, when it comes down to it, there's basically no difference between Payton/Malone's 2003-2004 contributions and Grant/Harper's 2000-2001 contributions, as they essentially bring the same level of talent, knowledge, and experience to the table. Gee, I'm glad that was clarified, I thought for a second Malone and Payton were better players...



> As for Payton, if he wins a ring, he will opt out and sign with another team for more $$.


Thank you Miss Cleo. 



> If he doesn't win it, he will opt out and sign with another contender.


Thank you again, Miss Cleo. 

Oh, just for giggles, can you remind me again what you were thinking when you first heard Payton would sign for less money in LA for a chance at the title? I’m sure it was “Of course he’d do it!”, right? :laugh:



> But then again, there is nothing wrong with showing no regard for the future. If that's how you approach building a team, EHL, fine with me.



If I wanted to plan for the future around suspect players I’d become the Sacramento Kings. If I wanted to win titles now and for a few years to come with bonafide superstars and a few good young players I’d become the Los Angeles Lakers. 

Besides, when you have a 25 year old Kobe Bryant you don’t need to throw in bunches of young players to go along with him. You need to throw in a mixture of vets and good young draft picks. The Lakers’ draft picks look good this year. Certainly, the Lakers made the better decision in betting their future on Kobe and Shaq than the Kings did on “I’m an Iron Man” Chris Webber. 

Then again, Kobe is without a doubt leaving this summer, along with Payton right? Hey, while you’re at it, can you list off next week’s lotto numbers? I need a few million in the bank.



> It seems to be Mitch's philosophy as well.


It's mostly Phil's philosophy, actually, and he's been using it for years. Though who cares about 9 titles, the guy's worthless and doesn't know how to win titles over many many years. Oh drats, wrong again...


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> Umm it wasnt jsut Sacramento and Dallas, it was also Phoenix and Memphis... Phoenix, the worst team in the west btw...


Leandro Barbosa, Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion, Casey Jacobsen, Jake Voskhul and Zarko Cabarkapa should be able to beat Gary Payton, Kareem Rush, Devean George and Slava Medvedenko. Losing to them wasn't much of a surprise. I doubt Bobby Jackson, Anthony Peeler, Gerald Wallace, Tony Massenburg and Darius Songaila could beat them either.

Memphis...well, the Kings just lost to Memphis by more than the Lakers did...


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!
> 
> 
> Let me guess...you have never said anything unintelligent in your whole life right?


Wow, that was random. Thanks a lot buddy, come back soon.

:whofarted


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> 
> 
> Wow, that was random. Thanks a lot buddy, come back soon.
> ...


haha Mr.G


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> You make it sound as if "the past" has no bearing on the future. Is this honestly the best argument you can come up with? "The past" means nothing?


Now you're starting to get it. In basketball, who won two years ago is of little relevance in predicting who will win tomorrow. Just like last week's winning lotto number is... (to be continued at the bottom of the page)




> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Yeah, and the 2003-2004 versions of Malone and Payton are exactly like 2000-2001 versions of Harper and Grant. I mean really, when it comes down to it, there's basically no difference between Payton/Malone's 2003-2004 contributions and Grant/Harper's 2000-2001 contributions, as they essentially bring the same level of talent, knowledge, and experience to the table. Gee, I'm glad that was clarified, I thought for a second Malone and Payton were better players...


Ah, but if you pluck the 2003-04 version of Shaq and Kobe into the 2000-01 squad, take away Horry and Fox, and have them compete in the cut-throat WC that is today, they'd have problems. 




> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> Oh, just for giggles, can you remind me again what you were thinking when you first heard Payton would sign for less money in LA for a chance at the title? I’m sure it was “Of course he’d do it!”, right? :laugh:


Actually when Payton signed with LA, my thought was: now LA has one beaten-fox, two cry babies, and three drama queens!! I wondered who was going to come to blow with who first. I guess Kobe won that contest. Payton was the next batter up. So I assume Shaq is on deck.

But Payton's signing was nothing compared to when I read that Russell is on board (Phil had a slip of the togue remember?). I literally bursted out laughing. It still gives me a chuckle whenever I thought about it. 

You can giggle now.



> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> If I wanted to plan for the future around suspect players I’d become the Sacramento Kings. If I wanted to win titles now and for a few years to come with bonafide superstars and a few good young players I’d become the Los Angeles Lakers.


Ooo... k.



> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Besides, when you have a 25 year old Kobe Bryant you don’t need to throw in bunches of young players to go along with him. You need to throw in a mixture of vets and good young draft picks. The Lakers’ draft picks look good this year. Certainly, the Lakers made the better decision in betting their future on Kobe and Shaq than the Kings did on “I’m an Iron Man” Chris Webber.
> 
> Then again, Kobe is without a doubt leaving this summer, along with Payton right? Hey, while you’re at it, can you list off next week’s lotto numbers? I need a few million in the bank.


You know, I can do better than give you next week's Lotto numbers; since you are such a big believer in the Past, I can give you Last Week's winning number.


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the thing. I don't think that the Lakers are going to give Shaq an extension, especially now. Buss might have been considering it a year ago but Shaq is starting to break down once again. The most disconcerting thing is that he's in better shape now than he was a year ago. I think these nagging foot injuries are going to plague him for the rest of his career, no matter how much weight he loses. I think we steer clear of that 3yr/$90 mill extension or whatever it is. Shaq is probably going to retire in a few years anyways. That will leave us with Kobe and a few young guys. You might argue that we'll be in the same boat is Philly, Boston, and Orlando. That is, a team that revolves around one superstar and has no championship aspirations. However, the biggest difference is that we'll have more cap room than they currently do. Philly is at the point where they can only trade contracts. Same with Bston. Orlando is strapped because of Grant Hill's contract. On the other hand, the Lakers will have atleast $25-30 million in cap room to spend on FAs if they don't re-sign any of their veterans. Shaq will be gone. Malone will be gone. Payton will be gone. Fisher will be gone. Fox will be gone. All that will be left is Kobe and $$$. It shouldn't be difficult to attract FAs either. There will no Phil Jackson, no triangle. Just warm weather, sun, $$$, and a chance to play with a top 5 player. LA will be back sooner than you think.



I get your point. It's valid enough. But I see a minor issue: 

The only way for the Lakers to live that golden future you described is for the young guns to claim starting spots. That way, Lakers can concentrate the $$ on one top tier FA to round out the team, instead of spreading the love out to three or four guys. 

The problem with the Lakers is: none of the young guys are capable starters. I mean starters as in good enough to start for other teams, not good as an emergency stand-in only. This means they will have a decent bench comes 2006, but the management will be pressed to spead the roughly $28 millions cap space on FOUR starters. You sign one top-tier FA and there will be barely enough for three MLE guys. 

While the Spurs can focus all of their dough on one guy because they already filled their starting spots with their own draft picks (and signing bench players is cheaper and easier). The Lakers, on the other hand, no matter how much cap space they have in the future, they will have to spread them. So in other words, they are in for another Kobe + another star + many marginal players makeup. They will remain competitive, but unless they can sign Yao Ming, they won't be over the top.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course. You don't pair an old bench with old starters, that's one of the big no-nos when building a team. The Lakers could have had Stephen Jackson instead of Russell, Brian Skinner instead of Grant, Leandrinho Barbosa instead of Brian Cook. Imagine what the Lakers would have been like if even one of the above three moves were made. Furthermore, they had the chance at Tyshaun Prince, Nenad Kristic, or Frank Williams but passed them up.
> ...


Your deeper bench consists of Vlade (to be a Laker or Clipper next year), Jackson and a bunch of players that are inferior to Slava and Rush... what are you really talking about? Do you consider Massenburg and Songalia to be good players? Maybe you are convinced that Gerald Wallace will actually accomplish something. By the way I spent many giggles on the signing of another Laker castoff from the dark early 90s. Maybe you guys can sign Cedric as well... I'll take Russell over both him and Peeler.

Nice to see Kings fans are already looking forward to 95. I guess winning the title is no longer the top goal for GMs, but building for the future is.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> Of course. You don't pair an old bench with old starters, that's one of the big no-nos when building a team. The Lakers could have had Stephen Jackson instead of Russell, Brian Skinner instead of Grant, Leandrinho Barbosa instead of Brian Cook. Imagine what the Lakers would have been like if even one of the above three moves were made. Furthermore, they had the chance at Tyshaun Prince, Nenad Kristic, or Frank Williams but passed them up.


Shows how much you know...Stephen Jackson would have been a horrible fit for the Lakers. He shoots way too much. We needed role players next to the Big 4, not guys who shoot 10-15 times every game.

Brian Skinner? He signed with the Bucks on the second day of FA. The Lakers had been far more concerned with getting Gary Payton and Karl Malone, and hadn't had time to think about good ole' Brian Skinner. Plus, we don't need Skinner with Slava, we just needed someone who could come in and play 5-8mpg. I doubt Skinner would have been very interested in this.

Leandrinho Barbosa instead of Brian Cook? No thanks. We already have Fisher and GP at the PG spot, and we needed another big man. Cook is getting 6.6ppg and 4.2rpg in 18.8mpg this season.

And Nenad Krstic?!:laugh: I would take Kareem Rush over him and Frank Williams any day. Tayshaun Prince...you can't blame the Lakers for passing on him, many other teams did too. No one would have thought that a stick would be able to play as well in the NBA as he has. Kareem is averaging 13.6ppg in the last 8 games, starting 6 of these 8 because of the absence of Kobe.


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> 
> 
> Your deeper bench consists of Vlade (to be a Laker or Clipper next year), Jackson and a bunch of players that are inferior to Slava and Rush... what are you really talking about? Do you consider Massenburg and Songalia to be good players? Maybe you are convinced that Gerald Wallace will actually accomplish something. By the way I spent many giggles on the signing of another Laker castoff from the dark early 90s. Maybe you guys can sign Cedric as well... I'll take Russell over both him and Peeler.
> ...


Ouch! Calling any player "inferior to Slava and Rush" must be one of the worst insults ever! Just be careful not to say that to any playground hoopster in North CA.

At any rate, Massenburg is a decent player who happens to fit in nicely into the Princeton offense. Having an experienced big man who operates well in the offense like Mass... as the 10th man is testament of the King's depth. In contrast, the Lakers’ 10th man would be Brian "inexperienced and oft injured" Cook. I see a big difference there.

Second, you're judging the teams strictly on paper, while I factor in actual game situations. Imagine a second unit with Divac at the high post, Bjax at the point, Wallace and Songaila cutting and moving, and a 3pt specialist like Peeler lurking on the perimeter. All the pieces fit like a jugsaw puzzle. It has athleticism, speed, muscle, size, height, shooting, rebounding, passing, youth, and experience. A motion offense involving those different skillset is extremely hard to defend, especially against another team's 2nd unit. There is a better than average chance that at some point, you'll actually see the full 2nd unit on the floor AT the same time! It's that effective. 

In contrast, the Lakers' 2nd unit would be Fisher, Rush, Fox, Grant, and Slava. One, this unit is slow and unathletic. Two, no one from this unit is good at running the pick and roll or create havoc in the lane. Three, no one can create on the weak side. Four, Rush is the only player who can create his own shots and he is inconsistent. Five, the front line is weak and the backcourt is slow. You'll never see Phil put those five guys on floor at the same time.


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

> At any rate, Massenburg is a decent player who happens to fit in nicely into the Princeton offense. Having an experienced big man who operates well in the offense like Mass... as the 10th man is testament of the King's depth. In contrast, the Lakers’ 10th man would be Brian "inexperienced and oft injured" Cook. I see a big difference there.


:rofl: 

Massenburg: 602 Career Games, 6.6 PPG, 4.5 RPG, 0.4 APG, 70.4 FT%, 47.4 FG%, 0.4 SPG, 1.0 TOPG, 0.5 BPG, 18.9 MPG

Cook: 13 Career Games, 6.6 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 0.9 APG, 75.0 FT%, 45.5 FG%, 0.7 SPG, 0.6 TOPG, 0.8 BPG, 18.8 MPG

LMAO.. Only difference is Tony has been around longer and is experienced.. Saying Cook is often injured is ridiculous.. He hasnt been injured this much since his Sophmore year in HS.. Get it right before you go saying he's "oft injured" .. Geesh


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Brian Cook is good ill give him that, but if i had a choice to for only one year, no future no nothing, just this year, id take Massenberg...


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Now you're starting to get it. In basketball, who won two years ago is of little relevance in predicting who will win tomorrow.


LOL, “little relevance”. Sorry, me and the rest of the world will continue to bet on a team that exists today with the same coach and same two best players that won a championship in 2000, 2001, and 2002 and that now has Gary Payton and Karl Malone versus a team that has no titles and Chris "I’m Mr. Reliable" Webber. 

But who cares about the past, we all know that Webber will play 82 games in the 2004-2005 season right? 

:laugh:



> Ah, but if you pluck the 2003-04 version of Shaq and Kobe into the 2000-01 squad, take away Horry and Fox, and have them compete in the cut-throat WC that is today, they'd have problems.


Hate to break it to you, but Kobe is a much better player now than you he was in 2001. Shaq is worse now than he was in 2001, but not enough that it doesn't balance out in the end. Kobe and Shaq of 2004 are just as strong as Kobe and Shaq of 2000-2001. Oh, and they have a little more help now with guys you may have heard of before, Gary Payton and Karl Malone. 

And the Spurs in 2001 were better than the Spurs of 2004. 



> Actually when Payton signed with LA, my thought was: now LA has one beaten-fox, two cry babies, and three drama queens!! I wondered who was going to come to blow with who first. I guess Kobe won that contest. Payton was the next batter up. So I assume Shaq is on deck.


No, when you heard that Payton might sign with L.A. you were thinking “It’ll never happen, he’ll take more money with a non-contender”. And then Payton said he’d indefinitely sign with the Lakers and you were proven wrong. 

Just rinse and repeat that scenario this summer when Payton doesn’t opt out and stays with the Lakers for a 2nd title. 



> But Payton's signing was nothing compared to when I read that Russell is on board (Phil had a slip of the togue remember?). I literally bursted out laughing. It still gives me a chuckle whenever I thought about it.
> 
> You can giggle now.


Funny, Russell plays better defense than any player the Kings have except maybe Christie. So yeah, I’ll continue giggling. 



> At any rate, Massenburg is a decent player who happens to fit in nicely into the Princeton offense. Having an experienced big man who operates well in the offense like Mass... as the 10th man is testament of the King's depth. In contrast, the Lakers’ 10th man would be Brian "inexperienced and oft injured" Cook. I see a big difference there.


Wow, now I’ve heard everything. “Oft injured” Brian Cook and Massenburg “fitting well” into an offense that in reality he is never really a part of in garbage time or during backup minutes. 



> Second, you're judging the teams strictly on paper, while I factor in actual game situations. Imagine a second unit with Divac at the high post, Bjax at the point, Wallace and Songaila cutting and moving, and a 3pt specialist like Peeler lurking on the perimeter. All the pieces fit like a jugsaw puzzle. It has athleticism, speed, muscle, size, height, shooting, rebounding, passing, youth, and experience. A motion offense involving those different skillset is extremely hard to defend, especially against another team's 2nd unit. There is a better than average chance that at some point, you'll actually see the full 2nd unit on the floor AT the same time! It's that effective.


Hey, let me know how often that’ll happen. I’ll guess….never. I’ve never seen Adelmen put Bojax and Peeler in the backcourt for too long against any good backcourt. Wallace? Yeah right, he can’t get minutes in the first place unless someone is injured. Though I guess he does get occasionally get those limited 2nd unit minutes…and stinks it up. Oh but he’s a great starter. :laugh: Songaila? Hey, he's better than Keon Clark right? Oh wait, not even close. 

If you actually want to talk about a real 2nd unit that IS and HAS actually been used during a game this season, it’d be a Fisher-Kobe/Rush-Russell/Fox-Slava-Grant versus a Bojax/Bibby-Bojax/Peeler-Wallace-Massenburg-Songaila/Divac. Sorry, that’s hardly a mismatch.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Hey, let me know how often that’ll happen. I’ll guess….never. I’ve never seen Adelmen put Bojax and Peeler in the backcourt for too long against any good backcourt. Wallace? Yeah right, he can’t get minutes in the first place unless someone is injured. Though I guess he does get occasionally get those limited 2nd unit minutes…and stinks it up. Oh but he’s a great starter. Songaila? Hey, he's better than Keon Clark right? Oh wait, not even close.


No but Brad Miller is better than Keon Clark and Hedo combined...

Kings Bench:
1.Vlade/Miller (Depends on Adelman)
2.Bjax
3.Peeler
4.Wallace
5.Songaila

However, the ones that get any significant minutes will be be Vlade/Miller and BJax, which are way better than anyone on the Laker bench...


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!No but Brad Miller is better than Keon Clark and Hedo combined...


That's nice, too bad Miller isn't a bench player. :laugh:



> Kings Bench:
> 1.Vlade/Miller (Depends on Adelman)
> 2.Bjax
> 3.Peeler
> ...


Miller won't be on the bench, bank on it. That leaves the woefully unconditioned and generally much slower Divac to fend off against Horace Grant, who sadly can guard Divac even though he's both older and shorter. Bobby Jackson is your best bench player, and he'll probably do some damage.....and that's about it. Kings bench is no where near as scary as it used to be.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> That's nice, too bad Miller isn't a bench player.


He might be when Webber comes back



> Miller won't be on the bench, bank on it. That leaves the woefully unconditioned and generally much slower Divac to fend off against Horace Grant, who sadly can guard Divac even though he's both older and shorter. Bobby Jackson is your best bench player, and he'll probably do some damage.....and that's about it. Kings bench is no where near as scary as it used to be.


NO NOT HORACE GRANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE SHUTS DOWN VLADE!!!! Because hes sucha great defender! Id take Vlade over any of your bench players anyday of the week... Id take Jackson over Russel, and Peeler over Fisher, id also take Massenberg over Grant, and id take Vlade over Slava, and Songailia over Sampson, i wouldnt take Wallace over Rush (Rush is better)


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Brian34Cook</b>!
> 
> 
> :rofl:
> ...



Once again, another poster going for what's look good on paper. Why don't you compare Massenburg to Shawn Kemp's career stat? Or Vin Baker's? Which one would you rather have today? 

Cook is oft injured. We are not yet at the All-Star break and he is already on his second medical leave. When a player is that beaten-up in his first season, it's usually a sign of things to come. A bunch of players never suffered any serious injury until they get to the NBA and becomes walking sick-notes. Just see Pervis Ellison.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Cook is oft injured.


The stream of bull continues. Do you even know what his injuries were? We're taking about him breaking fingers for god sakes, we're not talking about his ankles or knees, which would be much more serious. Oh, he's been injured exactly *two* this season. Oft-injured, lol. 



> We are not yet at the All-Star break and he is already on his second medical leave. When a player is that beaten-up in his first season, it's usually a sign of things to come.


Honestly, the BS is so thick it's truly getting pathetic now.


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> No, when you heard that Payton might sign with L.A. you were thinking “It’ll never happen, he’ll take more money with a non-contender”.


So now you are claiming you know what goes on inside my mind?

Great, all this while I was debating with a wacko.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Let's all settle down, drink a glass of tea, and get back to pure basketball talk please.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Im not quite understanding the whole Brian Cook injury comment, just because he broke his pinky and hurt his hand is in no way a sign of a injury prone career, its the bottom you need to worry about (calf, knee,foot,ankle,Hamstring)


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> Im not quite understanding the whole Brian Cook injury comment, just because he broke his pinky and hurt his hand is in no way a sign of a injury prone career, its the bottom you need to worry about (calf, knee,foot,ankle,Hamstring)


Exactly what I was thinking. I believe Kobe/Fox/Others broke their pinkies their rookies years as well. My point was just because he broke his finger and has missed some (A lot) of games this year doesnt mean he's injured all the time. Infact, he didnt even miss a game in college due to injuries.. Take that Injury prone bashers :laugh: 

NOW BACK TO KAREEM RUSH!!!


----------



## HoopStar (Jan 2, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Brian34Cook</b>!
> NOW BACK TO KAREEM RUSH!!!


I think Rush is becoming a decent player-hes no Kobe but IMO hes better that Fisher

I was excited when I found out that the Lakers had acquired Rush as I had read about him when he played at Missouri. I was a bit disappointed with his rookie season so its good to now see him putting up some good numbers.
He is still a bit inconsistent-similar to jj last season when Phoenix ended up starting penny, but I think he has improved a lot this season especially with all the injuries and he had some decent numbers off the bench before that.
Hopefully Phil will head to Rush ahead of Fisher when the Lakers are at full strength as I think Rush will be a player who can come off the bench and score points.


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Brian34Cook</b>!
> 
> 
> Exactly what I was thinking. I believe Kobe/Fox/Others broke their pinkies their rookies years as well. My point was just because he broke his finger and has missed some (A lot) of games this year doesnt mean he's injured all the time. Infact, he didnt even miss a game in college due to injuries.. Take that Injury prone bashers :laugh:
> ...



Just to clarify, we were comparing benches and talking about the context of this season Only. Thus far this season, Cook has missed "A lot" of games by your admission. 

In an NBA game, I assume everything we discuss is confined to the NBA time frame, unless otherwise stated. So when I said, of-injured, it refers to his state of unhealthiess in his young career. .. in the NBA. What he did or how he was in college is of no relevance since we were talking "benche players" not "college starters", and definitely not "highschool stars" if you want to throw that in as well.

With that said, I wonder, What's Left to discuss about Kareem Rush??


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> 
> Massenburg... as the 10th man is testament of the King's depth.



LOL, hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

And the Lakers releasing Pargo was a testament to their depth.


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> the Lakers' 2nd unit would be Fisher, Rush, Fox, Grant, and Slava. One, this unit is slow and unathletic. Two, no one from this unit is good at running the pick and roll or create havoc in the lane. Three, no one can create on the weak side. Four, Rush is the only player who can create his own shots and he is inconsistent. Five, the front line is weak and the backcourt is slow. You'll never see Phil put those five guys on floor at the same time.


A few things here...we had similar problems with our 2nd unit in 00, 01, and 02 and that hurt the Lakers so much that....um yeah. Rush is not the only one that can create. I dont know if you have even been watching games but I've seen Slava take a few guys off the dribble and dunk in addition to bouncing off screens and spotting up to hit some mid range shots. Thats the same thing Peja does and many revere him as an all star, so if Slava cant create than neither can Peja. And like you ever see the kings put in all five non-starters at once.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> And the Lakers releasing Pargo was a testament to their depth.


Umm... Pargo is by FAR worse than anyone on the Kings... If i had a choice between him or even Jabari Smith id take Smith... Thats no testament to depth! Are the Clippers so full of depth because they let Glen Rice go...



> Massenburg... as the 10th man is testament of the King's depth.


Massenberg isnt the 10th man... Hell be the 8th man when Webber comes back... right now hes the 7th man...



> A few things here...we had similar problems with our 2nd unit in 00, 01, and 02 and that hurt the Lakers so much that....um yeah. Rush is not the only one that can create. I dont know if you have even been watching games but I've seen Slava take a few guys off the dribble and dunk in addition to bouncing off screens and spotting up to hit some mid range shots. Thats the same thing Peja does and many revere him as an all star, so if Slava cant create than neither can Peja. And like you ever see the kings put in all five non-starters at once.


First of all... Kill yourself... to even COMPARE PEJA TO SLAVA IS RETARDED, i cant beleive were at this again... Peja can create his own shot and MAKE IT! Just because Pejas way of getting open is moving without the ball (which Slava doesnt do nearly as well btw) doesnt make him as good...Peja is revered as an ALL STAR BECAUSE HE SCORES 25 PPG AND SHOOTS 50% FROM THE FIELD! Not because he gets screens! And since you never watch Kings game, ill fill you in... Ive seen this lineup alot of times...

1.Massenberg
2.Jackson
3.Songaila
4.Peeler
5.Miller/Vlade

Thats one starter out there... Adelman does it quite frequently too... When Webber comes back it will be...

1.Vlade
2.Massenberg
3.Songaila/Wallace
4.Peeler
5.Jackson

That will be 100% bench...


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!
> 
> 
> A few things here...we had similar problems with our 2nd unit in 00, 01, and 02 and that hurt the Lakers so much that....um yeah.


Don't put words in my mouth. I never said they won't win the title. This tread is about the bench (Rush in particular) and a bit on how the bench affects the future. If you want to talk rings go somewhere else.

But you're very subtle about agreeing with me, jstempi. I'm glad you came to the conclusion that the Lakers have "similar problems"....


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> Umm... Pargo is by FAR worse than anyone on the Kings... If i had a choice between him or even Jabari Smith id take Smith... Thats no testament to depth! Are the Clippers so full of depth because they let Glen Rice go...


The Pargo thing was said "tongue-in-cheek"...lighten up dude.



> First of all... Kill yourself...


Kill yourself? Lets grow up a little here. Nothing about this game is worth fretting about...maybe it is for you and what pathetic life you may have, but lets not make lame comments like that. 



> to even COMPARE PEJA TO SLAVA IS RETARDED, i cant beleive were at this again... Peja can create his own shot and MAKE IT! Just because Pejas way of getting open is moving without the ball (which Slava doesnt do nearly as well btw) doesnt make him as good...Peja is revered as an ALL STAR BECAUSE HE SCORES 25 PPG AND SHOOTS 50% FROM THE FIELD! Not because he gets screens!


LOL, you are the one who compared Peja to Slava in a previous thread, so dont be a hypocrite. All I am saying is Slava creates his own shots by moving off screens, so if he cant create his own shot, neither can Peja because thats what Peja does. I see you did not dispute that so whoever said Rush is the only Laker bench player that can create their own shot is flat out wrong.



> And since you never watch Kings game, ill fill you in... Ive seen this lineup alot of times...
> 
> 1.Massenberg
> 2.Jackson
> ...


In the immortal words of EHL, thank you cleo.

The Lakers have 4 subs out there with one starter all the time (even when everyone was healthy). So if the kings do it too, whooopty-do. What is your point Sackings? It doesn't mean the kings are deep just because there's 4 subs out there. And your prediction about putting 5 bench guys out there is nice and all, but we'll wait and see. I doubt he'll do it, it's just not a smart thing to do unless you're up by 20 or all your starters are in foul trouble.


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't put words in my mouth. I never said they won't win the title. This tread is about the bench (Rush in particular) and a bit on how the bench affects the future. If you want to talk rings go somewhere else.
> ...


I didn't put any words in your mouth, I didn't say that you said they wouldn't win the title. And no, dont pretend the topic didnt evolve from being about the bench and how it affects the future to talking about flaws in the laker's and kings current benches. You yourself started talking about how unathletic and slow the laker's bench is. So dont be foolish and play those childish games and tell me to go elsewhere just because you cannot refute what I say. You said the laker bench is slow and unathletic and I said since when has that mattered much. Apparently you cannot debate me on this since you resorted to the "oh thats off topic" cop-out. 

And sure, its no secret that the laker bench is less athletic than other teams, there's no sense in you pretending that you found some underriding subtle agreement from me. I said it already, everybody knows it. Again, when has that mattered? And I also noticed you realized you were wrong in saying that only rush can create his own shot...certainly slava can. Thanks for admitting you were wrong by your silence.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Kill yourself? Lets grow up a little here. Nothing about this game is worth fretting about...maybe it is for you and what pathetic life you may have, but lets not make lame comments like that.


Well, thats a saying i have, i dont mean it literally... just "tounge and cheek" and you told me to lighten up...




> LOL, you are the one who compared Peja to Slava in a previous thread, so dont be a hypocrite. All I am saying is Slava creates his own shots by moving off screens, so if he cant create his own shot, neither can Peja because thats what Peja does. I see you did not dispute that so whoever said Rush is the only Laker bench player that can create their own shot is flat out wrong


Comparing them is stupid, because to even HAVE to show people that Peja is much better is ridiculous, but of course, i HAD to, becasue i was getting arguments of Slava being just as good as Peja per 48 minutes... 



> The Lakers have 4 subs out there with one starter all the time (even when everyone was healthy). So if the kings do it too, whooopty-do. What is your point Sackings? It doesn't mean the kings are deep just because there's 4 subs out there. And your prediction about putting 5 bench guys out there is nice and all, but we'll wait and see. I doubt he'll do it, it's just not a smart thing to do unless you're up by 20 or all your starters are in foul trouble.


Well i can see you have amnesia so ill put up your quote a few posts ago... 



> And like you ever see the kings put in all five non-starters at once.


And i simply said, you will see that... and when every Laker is healthy, youll never see

1.Grant
2.Fisher
3.Rush
4.Fox
5.Slava

On the court at the same time, unless...its garbage time...with four HOF's youll see at least one on the court at all times, most likely Kobe...


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> Well, thats a saying i have, i dont mean it literally... just "tounge and cheek" and you told me to lighten up...


Well, it sounds derogatory and is plain rude. There is a difference between telling someone to kill themselves and saying Jannero Pargo is a good player. If you cant see it, then you're either ten years old or you've got issues.



> Comparing them is stupid, because to even HAVE to show people that Peja is much better is ridiculous, but of course, i HAD to, becasue i was getting arguments of Slava being just as good as Peja per 48 minutes...


Since when does comparing people mean you are saying one is better than the other? Hello!!! You need to stop being so defensive about your beloved Peja, nobody is saying Slava is better. People were only bringing up Slavas stats per 48 minutes and comparing it to Peja because you said Slava sucked. You’re reading too much into what people say…my goodness you are taking your adoration for the Kings a bit too seriously. You might want to find something else in your life that is important before you find yourself stocking Vlade or something. 



> Well i can see you have amnesia so ill put up your quote a few posts ago...


I don’t think you comprehend what amnesia is. And you need to take a reading comprehension course. I said you wont see 5 kings non-starters in at once. You said they will do it when webber is back and then I said it would not be smart even then. I don’t see how amnesia comes into play.



> And i simply said, you will see that... and when every Laker is healthy, youll never see
> 
> 1.Grant
> 2.Fisher
> ...


Duh, I never said they would, so what’s your point? What’s the big deal? How is this meaningful at all or are you just hyping your kings once again and making up meaningless positives that your team may or may not have so you can make yourself feel better about the fact that your beloved kings have zero rings. Who cares if a team doesn’t take all starters out at once?????
:sigh:


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> I don’t think you comprehend what amnesia is. And you need to take a reading comprehension course. I said you wont see 5 kings non-starters in at once. You said they will do it when webber is back and then I said it would not be smart even then. I don’t see how amnesia comes into play.


BECAUSE YOU SAID THE KINGS NEVER WOULD PLAY ALL 5 BENCH PLAYERS ATY ONCE!!!!!! THEN YOU SAID, BIG WHOOP THEY PLAY ALL 5 BENCH PLAYERS AT ONCE!!! BUT LIKE 2 POSTS AGO YOU SAID THEY NEVER WOULD PLAY THEM ALL AT ONCE! THATS AMNESIA BECASUE YOU SEEM TO HAVE FORGOT WHAT YOU POSTED!


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> BECAUSE YOU SAID THE KINGS NEVER WOULD PLAY ALL 5 BENCH PLAYERS ATY ONCE!!!!!! THEN YOU SAID, BIG WHOOP THEY PLAY ALL 5 BENCH PLAYERS AT ONCE!!! BUT LIKE 2 POSTS AGO YOU SAID THEY NEVER WOULD PLAY THEM ALL AT ONCE! THATS AMNESIA BECASUE YOU SEEM TO HAVE FORGOT WHAT YOU POSTED!


:no: 

I think you need to re-read the posts smarty, I never said they do. Please, dare to post my quote saying this. I said they play 4 just like the lakers do.  

T-A-K-E A R-E-A-D-I-N-G C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-O-N C-L-A-S-S


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!
> 
> And no, dont pretend the topic didnt evolve from being about the bench and how it affects the future to talking about flaws in the laker's and kings current benches. You yourself started talking about how unathletic and slow the laker's bench is. So dont be foolish and play those childish games and tell me to go elsewhere just because you cannot refute what I say. You said the laker bench is slow and unathletic and I said since when has that mattered much. Apparently you cannot debate me on this since you resorted to the "oh thats off topic" cop-out.


You do not understand my initial point. It is NOT Lakers will not win the title. It IS: the Lakers did not put themselves in the best position to win by signing the old players. They may still pull through, they may not. It's too early to tell. 

Yes, this thread has evolved from the Lakers' bench to flaws about the Kings and Lakers' benches. No, it has NOT gone from being that to "Lakers can't win the title." You can keep pounding it if you like, I for one will not because it is just another "yes, they will win" vs "no, they won't" debate.

Now, you can argue why the Lakers' current crop is better than the alternatives they could have had. Or how their roster benefits them in the future. You hinted that the Lakers don't need a good bench at all. But it's hard to decipher underneath the attacks you're launching.

Sacking already refuted your comparison of Slava to Peja. This is such a stupid comparison I don't think any rebut is needed. It'd be like comparing Roseanne Barr to Shakira. Just because you saw Slava took some unsuspecting player off the dribble means nothing. I saw Bill Wellington did the same thing. Any player in the NBA has the ability to dribble and shoot. The main issue is, can Slava beat his defender consistently? The answer is no.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> I think you need to re-read the posts smarty, I never said they do. Please, dare to post my quote saying this. I said they play 4 just like the lakers do.


Ouch, i just got lit up, i misread one of your posts, well sort of, i misinterpreted it, maybe i do need a comprehension class 

:laugh:


----------



## Duece Duece (Mar 28, 2003)

Slava is better than any big man that comes off the Kings bench right now. :yes:


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> You do not understand my initial point. It is NOT Lakers will not win the title. It IS: the Lakers did not put themselves in the best position to win by signing the old players. They may still pull through, they may not. It's too early to tell.


Yes I do understand, I was simply responding to your comment as to how you think they did not put themselves in the best position. It is simply really. The lakers signed old veterans on the backend of their careers and won championships with them…Rice, Harper, Salley, Shaw, Grant, A.C. Green…. 



> Yes, this thread has evolved from the Lakers' bench to flaws about the Kings and Lakers' benches. No, it has NOT gone from being that to "Lakers can't win the title." You can keep pounding it if you like, I for one will not because it is just another "yes, they will win" vs "no, they won't" debate.


This is lame, get over it!!! Even I never said anything about winning the title…you’re just making stuff up and changing the subject to being an argument about who is off topic (which the answer is nobody) rather than admitting that you may be wrong. 



> Now, you can argue why the Lakers' current crop is better than the alternatives they could have had. Or how their roster benefits them in the future. You hinted that the Lakers don't need a good bench at all. But it's hard to decipher underneath the attacks you're launching.


I didn’t hint anything Mr. Mindreader. I said is that the Lakers have won with poor bench players. There is nothing to decipher, just read my comments and stop trying to analyze or assume what is in the back of my mind when I post things. What do you think you are a shrink? If you want to know how I think the lakers will fare in the future with their current crop of youngsters just ask. To save you some time asking, I’ll tell you. I’m no fortune teller like you but since the lakers seem to be able to attract some good free agents, I think they’ll be fine. There are too many variables to make any reasonable predictions so talking about it is not productive.



> Sacking already refuted your comparison of Slava to Peja. This is such a stupid comparison I don't think any rebut is needed. It'd be like comparing Roseanne Barr to Shakira. Just because you saw Slava took some unsuspecting player off the dribble means nothing. I saw Bill Wellington did the same thing. Any player in the NBA has the ability to dribble and shoot. The main issue is, can Slava beat his defender consistently? The answer is no.


Apparently you have no clue what the comparison was. Maybe you should try to read posts and try to understand what people type rather that read things into posts that people aren’t trying to say. The only comparison made between the two was because you inferred that Slava couldn’t create his own shot. You Peja lovers think I am saying Slava is as good as or better than Peja which is not what I said and shows you need to either take a reading comprehension class or need help with your Peja addiction. You’re reacting like democrats when a republican says we need to reform social security. The automatically assume the republican wants old people dying in the streets. So get over it, Slava is not as good as Peja…what I was saying is that he can create his own shot. I see you are not in reality because you used the word “unsuspecting.” He has taken SUSPECTING defenders off the dribble and bounces off screens just like Peja does. No, he can do it as consistently as Peja (I never said he could and this was NOT the issue although you think it was). Consistency was not the issue, you think it is but if you look back at the previous posts the only issue was if he could create his own shot, which now you seem to be admitting. THANKS FOR ADMITTING THAT YOU WERE WRONG!!!!
:laugh:


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> Ouch, i just got lit up, i misread one of your posts, well sort of, i misinterpreted it, maybe i do need a comprehension class
> ...


Yes you did...next time read the posts with an open mind then you will be less likely to make mistakes and read things into what people are saying (which they are actually are not saying).


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Duece Duece</b>!
> Slava is better than any big man that comes off the Kings bench right now. :yes:


:yes:


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Slava is better than any big man that comes off the Kings bench right now.


He wont be when C Webb comes back...


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> He wont be when C Webb comes back...


Dont be too sure. And even if your two best bench players are better than the lakers best two bench players...the laker's starting five are better than your and the rest of the lakers bench is better than the rest of yours so get over it. You're hype is  .


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Well see in the playoffsnow wont we...


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

And like i said

Last night:
Kings bench:34 points
Spurs Bench:8

When was the last time your bench scored 34 points... how bout...never? When C Webb comes back that will put either Miller or Vlade on the bench which will make it even more points for the bench...and the bench playing when the starters were out doesnt count... because im sure if Peeler Jackson Massenberg Songaila and Wallace played a full game, theyd score more than 34 points... Off the BENCH, the Lakers never put up those kind of numbers... 

1.Jackson>Fisher
2.Peeler >Russell
3.Songaila>Sampson
4.Vlade>Slava
5.Massenberg>Cook
6. Rush > Wallace

Thats 4 better players...


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Hey this is no disrespect to the Lakers or anything, the Kings havent won yet and the Lakers have, and they never had a good bench... They still dont but the Lakers did it before and they can do it again...


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Sac you can edit your posts cant you?

And when was the Last time the Lakers scored 34 pts from the bench? 36 pts (Grant - 8, Rush - 7, Russell - 4, Fox - 2, Fisher - 11, Walton - 4) Wednesday vs Seattle.. Take that.. :grinning:


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Sac you can edit your posts cant you?


Sure cant... it says only moderators can...wait now i can... i never could before... what the?


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> Sure cant... it says only moderators can...wait now i can... i never could before... what the?


That's weird.. Oh well.. I got it taken care of


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Thank you... is it something you get when you move up in ranking? I could never do this before...


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> And like i said
> 
> Last night:
> ...


LOL, that’s twice you got ripped!!! Thanks for the help Brian34Cook.




> When C Webb comes back that will put either Miller or Vlade on the bench which will make it even more points for the bench...and the bench playing when the starters were out doesnt count... because im sure if Peeler Jackson Massenberg Songaila and Wallace played a full game, theyd score more than 34 points... Off the BENCH, the Lakers never put up those kind of numbers...
> 
> 1.Jackson>Fisher
> 2.Peeler >Russell
> ...


1. Vlade>Grant
2. Sampson>Smith
3. Jackson>Fisher
4. Rush>Peeler
5. Russell>Wallace (stats are similar but Russel’s D is way better than Peeler’s)
6. Slava/Sampson/Cook>Songalia/Massenberg
7. Walton/Fox>Buford

Sorry you are simply wrong…try again.

Break it down by position:

Center:

Vlade/Massenberg/Smith >or equal to Grant/Slava/Sampson

PG:

Jackson>Fisher

SG:

Rush/Russel>Peeler

SF:

Russel/Fox/Walton>Wallace

PF:

Slava/Cook/Sampson>Songaila


You still only win two of five.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Heres all you need to know...

The Kings bench that actually plays or will play

1.Vlade
2.Jackson
3.Peeler
4.Massenberg
5.Songaila

The Laker bench that will play

1.Slava
2.Fisher
3.Russel
4.Rush
5.Cook
6.Grant

Now, if i were a GM, id rather have the Kings bench in than the Lakers bench in... None of those players other than maybe Slava, are playmakers, none can do anything but feed off of other players, what the Lakers bench has is shotmakers, not playmakers... the Kings have Vlade and Jackson to make the plays, Peeler to hit the three, Massenberg to supply the rebound and post D, and Songaila to supply a decnt post prescence...


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> Heres all you need to know...
> 
> The Kings bench that actually plays or will play
> ...


If I were the King's GM i'd rather have 3 rings, the most coveted team brand in the league, the lakers starters, and the laker's fans (since they actually have teeth)....screw the bench.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

This argument isnt about the team, its about the bench...thats like going Marbury is better than Jason Kidd, then just going, JAson Kidd has made it to the NBA Finals, Marbury hasnt thats the end... what a good point you made...


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!
> 
> 
> The lakers signed old veterans on the backend of their careers and <b>won championships </b>with them…Rice, Harper, Salley, Shaw, Grant, A.C. Green….
> ...


Do you enjoy debating with yourself? First you said they can win the championship. Then you said you "never said anything about winning the title." Finally, "There are too many variables to make any reasonable predictions so talking about it is not productive." 

I guess you covered all the bases didn't you? You should run for office.




> Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!
> Apparently you have no clue what the comparison was. Maybe you should try to read posts and try to understand what people type rather that read things into posts that people aren’t trying to say. The only comparison made between the two was because you inferred that Slava couldn’t create his own shot. You Peja lovers think I am saying Slava is as good as or better than Peja which is not what I said and shows you need to either take a reading comprehension class or need help with your Peja addiction. You’re reacting like democrats when a republican says we need to reform social security. The automatically assume the republican wants old people dying in the streets. So get over it, Slava is not as good as Peja…what I was saying is that he can create his own shot. I see you are not in reality because you used the word “unsuspecting.” He has taken SUSPECTING defenders off the dribble and bounces off screens just like Peja does. No, he can do it as consistently as Peja (I never said he could and this was NOT the issue although you think it was). Consistency was not the issue, you think it is but if you look back at the previous posts the only issue was if he could create his own shot, which now you seem to be admitting. THANKS FOR ADMITTING THAT YOU WERE WRONG!!!!
> :laugh:


Actually, you're reacting like Republicans when some Democrats questioned the Patriot Act -- guarding and protecting it not because you truly understand it but because the other side is questioning its constitutionality. If I am a Laker fan, you'd be agreeing with me on how Slava needs to learn more moves. For your information, anyone who cannot consistently creates his own shot qualifies as someone who CANNOT CREATE his own shot. But perhaps you hold your own guys to a lower standard. Also a common practice in the conservative circle I observed.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Kareem with another nice game last night...17 points, 7 rebounds, 4 assists.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Ya Kareem is playing fairly good as of late...


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> This argument isnt about the team, its about the bench...thats like going Marbury is better than Jason Kidd, then just going, JAson Kidd has made it to the NBA Finals, Marbury hasnt thats the end... what a good point you made...


Actually, the argument was about Kareem Rush. The fact is that if I were a GM I’d probably rather have the Kings bench, but that would not be possible because if I had the Lakers’ starters I couldn’t afford the king’s bench. So I’d rather have he rings, the most coveted team brand in the league, the lakers starters, and the laker's fans than a bench that is not as good as the kings bench overall. Sorry, that’s the end of it and you cannot dispute that.



> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> Do you enjoy debating with yourself? First you said they can win the championship. Then you said you "never said anything about winning the title." Finally, "There are too many variables to make any reasonable predictions so talking about it is not productive."
> 
> I guess you covered all the bases didn't you? You should run for office.


Wrong once again…you really need that reading comprehension class. What I said was that they won championships with old guys in the last few years. And yes I never said anything about winning the title this year in this thread, learn how to read. And finally, when I said there were too many variables it was in reference to predicting how the current bench will effect future years…isn’t that what you wanted me to get back on topic to discuss?? Geez, you cant even follow the discussion.



> Actually, you're reacting like Republicans when some Democrats questioned the Patriot Act -- guarding and protecting it not because you truly understand it but because the other side is questioning its constitutionality. If I am a Laker fan, you'd be agreeing with me on how Slava needs to learn more moves. For your information, anyone who cannot consistently creates his own shot qualifies as someone who CANNOT CREATE his own shot. But perhaps you hold your own guys to a lower standard. Also a common practice in the conservative circle I observed.


Well if you had a clue you’d know its not the Legislature’s job to decide what’s constitutional, it’s the Judicial branch’s job…besides that, there is legal precedent for most if not all of the granted authorities in the patriot act. What will be challenged however is some of the vague wording in it.

And I agree Slava can improve, who couldn’t use some improvement? All I was doing was correcting you when you said Rush was the only one that could create his own shot, it seems now that you appear to be retracting that statement (even though you are not admitting you were wrong). Oh, and since Duncan cannot consistently create shot when Shaq defends him means Duncan cannot create his own shot ever…whatever. There are defensive matchups out there that can even stop or slow the best of players (like Bowen on Kobe last year) that does not mean the cant ever create their own shots. Just silly and ignorant. And oh yeah, conservatives love to hold people to lower standards…that’s why we are such great proponents of affirmative action, welfare and social promotion in schools. In case you have absolutely no clue these are things Democrats/liberals do to lower standards and Republicans are against. You really have no idea do you?


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!
> 
> 
> Well if you had a clue you’d know its not the Legislature’s job to decide what’s constitutional, it’s the Judicial branch’s job…besides that, there is legal precedent for most if not all of the granted authorities in the patriot act. What will be challenged however is some of the vague wording in it.


I do know. That's why I said the Democrats <b>questioned</b> the act (check my original message), NOT decide. I'll assume you mis-read my quote an move on. Unless of course, you're against allowing the Legislature the ability to question. 




> Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!
> Oh, and since Duncan cannot consistently create shot when Shaq defends him means Duncan cannot create his own shot ever…whatever.


What league were you watching? Duncan CANNOT (!!) create shots against Shaq?? Are you kidding me!? Did you watch last year's playoffs? A certain Game 6 in particular?

I have no idea what makes you think I'm retracting. Let me say it clearly: Slava cannot create his own shots. Why I say that? He cannot get his own shots consistently against most opponents. In the NBA, that qualifies as not being able to CHOS. 

As for social promotion in schools, guess what, you're wrong again. Bill Clinton said a few yrs back in 1999 that it should be ended. Hmmm... when did Smooth Willy become a Republican? Regarding affirmative action, not all Liberals support it. I really don't want to debate politics, so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Actually, the argument was about Kareem Rush. The fact is that if I were a GM I’d probably rather have the Kings bench, but that would not be possible because if I had the Lakers’ starters I couldn’t afford the king’s bench. So I’d rather have he rings, the most coveted team brand in the league, the lakers starters, and the laker's fans than a bench that is not as good as the kings bench overall. Sorry, that’s the end of it and you cannot dispute that.


THANK YOU! I had no debate as to who had a better starting 5! You were saying that the Lakers bench is better! Now you just admitted you lost, its done and over... Thank you


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

What the heck is this debate about anyways? 

Anyways Kareem isn't looking that good today but who cares..


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

The debate started about Rush, then turned into whos bench is better: Lakers or Kings


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> THANK YOU! I had no debate as to who had a better starting 5! You were saying that the Lakers bench is better! Now you just admitted you lost, its done and over... Thank you


Congradulations for winning. Considering you were the only one debating who's bench is better, go ahead a pat yourself on the back for winning a one man debate. I never said the Laker bench was better, I just said Slava could create his own shot and that you wont see 5 kings non-starters in at once. I guess you just feel the need to say you won something since you cant say that about the Kings.


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> I do know. That's why I said the Democrats <b>questioned</b> the act (check my original message), NOT decide. I'll assume you mis-read my quote an move on. Unless of course, you're against allowing the Legislature the ability to question.


Duh, by questioning it they wanted to decide, dont pretend that constitutionality was the only reason why they held up the bill. If its the right thing to do, then pass it and let the courts decide constitutionality. They obviously had other issues with it and those are the issues Republicans were defending the act for. And by the way, dont assume things.



> What league were you watching? Duncan CANNOT (!!) create shots against Shaq?? Are you kidding me!? Did you watch last year's playoffs? A certain Game 6 in particular?


It's confirmed, you cannot read. I said you're assertion that Slava cant create his own shot because the elite defenders can shut him down is as stupid as saying Duncan cant create his own shot because Shaq can shut him down. 



> Let me say it clearly: Slava cannot create his own shots. Why I say that? He cannot get his own shots consistently against most opponents. In the NBA, that qualifies as not being able to CHOS.


Oh, now I see that in the NBA manual...whatever. He does just fine against most opponants, just not the elite defenders.



> As for social promotion in schools, guess what, you're wrong again. Bill Clinton said a few yrs back in 1999 that it should be ended. Hmmm... when did Smooth Willy become a Republican? Regarding affirmative action, not all Liberals support it. I really don't want to debate politics, so I'll leave it at that.


LOL, yeah, Bill Clinton said a lot of things. "I did not have..." come on, you can finish it. Thanks Bill, for saying it should be ended on your way out of office and after you supported it for eight years. I've been a teacher...most teachers are Democrats and let social promotion happen. And the vast majority of liberals support affirmative action, otherwise it would be gone since most Republicans dont like it. but its still around...and I understand why you dont want to debate politics, you're way out of your league with me. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!
> 
> It's confirmed, you cannot read. I said you're assertion that Slava cant create his own shot because the elite defenders can shut him down is as stupid as saying Duncan cant create his own shot because Shaq can shut him down.


Why do you keep saying Shaq can shut down Duncan? Shaq can't. 



> Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!
> Oh, now I see that in the NBA manual...whatever. He does just fine against most opponants, just not the elite defenders.


Like I said, if it's good enough for you. Fine with me.



> Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!
> LOL, yeah, Bill Clinton said a lot of things. "I did not have..." come on, you can finish it. Thanks Bill, for saying it should be ended on your way out of office and after you supported it for eight years. I've been a teacher...most teachers are Democrats and let social promotion happen. And the vast majority of liberals support affirmative action, otherwise it would be gone since most Republicans dont like it. but its still around...and I understand why you dont want to debate politics, you're way out of your league with me. I'll leave it at that.


Ah... you were a teacher! That explains a lot.

There are reasons why social promotion is still in place, if you are as knowledgeable about the issue as you claim, you should know the ins and outs and why it's not a simple black and white issue. If you want to dwell on this topic, you can try posting on Selectsmart.com or other political discussion board. Same for your idea that Legislative questioning is wrong. 
You see, people who know politics tend not to discuss them on a basketball board.

Btw, I made you took out the Rush Limbaugh quote sig. It is undoubtedly the smartest thing you've done thus far.


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!
> Why do you keep saying Shaq can shut down Duncan? Shaq can't.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sean (Jun 7, 2002)

If you want to continue with political debates, please take it to the EBB forum, or better yet, via PM. Ths thread has gone way off topic and is done.


----------

