ImageImageImageImageImage

We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG

Moderators: Kilroy, Danny Darko, TyCobb

VIPER8382
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,784
And1: 105
Joined: Aug 09, 2007

We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#1 » by VIPER8382 » Wed Jan 6, 2010 9:42 pm

Historically Phil has often played SG's at PG. See Harper, Ron (both in CHI and LA), or more recently Shannon Brown. A lot of regular PG's would work fine, but so would a lot of SG's. Here is a list of guys that aren't PG's who I think would work great.

Stephen Curry (absolutely perfect short term and long term, but he would probably cost us Bynum, which I would only do if we got another strong young center back also)

Eric Gordon (absolutely perfect short term and long term, but he would cost us Bynum, which I would consider if we got a good enough center in the deal)

OJ Mayo (would work in the short term, be great long term after Kobe, but would cost us Bynum in a 3 way deal, which I would consider if we could snag a good enough center in the deal).

Ray Allen (absolutely perfect short term, but not really possible unless Boston trades him to someone else in a blockbuster).

Mike Miller (a legitimate possibility, could play triangle PG on offense and defend the lesser of SG or SF on defense. He would absolutely destroy teams on offense, but I am not sure how his defense is.)

Tracy McGrady (tough to get for this season, but may be a realistic option in the offseason, and yes I really think he could be our starting PG next season).

Devin Brown (we could probably get him for free, TPE)

I really think we need to try to find a way to get Miller, or if we can't then Devin Brown.

What do you guys think, could these guys be triangle PG's, and are there some guys that I am missing (including just non PG's)?
VIPER8382
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,784
And1: 105
Joined: Aug 09, 2007

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#2 » by VIPER8382 » Wed Jan 6, 2010 9:46 pm

I already thought of another, James Harden would be a very good option (he has actually shown the ability to be a true PG with his playmaking, but he is a SG by trade, but I think he could be a great short term and long term PG, but he would cost us Bynum).
User avatar
Dr Aki
RealGM
Posts: 35,692
And1: 31,935
Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
   

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#3 » by Dr Aki » Wed Jan 6, 2010 11:44 pm

also all those guys you listed would be hard if not impossible to acquire given the lakers' lux tax situation.

you also need to take into account, that the PG needs to be able to defend other point guards, especially the quick ones. they cant just be shooting guards that can shoot, cos we all know kobe and artest aren't quick enough to guard PGs either... so they also need to have decent lateral foot speed...

which basically makes your list pretty useless (but i appreciate the effort), and with the players still on their rookie scales, its nigh impossible to pry those guys away without giving up a core piece of what makes the lakers, the lakers.

its also the reason, why we keep playing farmar and shannon to see which one of them will develop. and if there were any targets, we'd be looking at kirk hinrich, charlie bell and steve blake.
Image
Asianiac_24
General Manager
Posts: 8,501
And1: 3,997
Joined: Jul 28, 2008
Contact:
   

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#4 » by Asianiac_24 » Thu Jan 7, 2010 12:16 am

In the offseason, I always wanted Anthony Parker because he could defend, shoot, and do some sort of playmaking. Yea he can't guard the Chris Pauls of the league, but how many Chris Pauls are there in the league?
User avatar
Dr Aki
RealGM
Posts: 35,692
And1: 31,935
Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
   

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#5 » by Dr Aki » Thu Jan 7, 2010 12:20 am

Asianiac_24 wrote:In the offseason, I always wanted Anthony Parker because he could defend, shoot, and do some sort of playmaking. Yea he can't guard the Chris Pauls of the league, but how many Chris Pauls are there in the league?


its not the chris pauls of the league

its the aaron brooks, ty lawsons of the league making us pissed off
Image
daddyfivestar
Banned User
Posts: 5,215
And1: 0
Joined: Jun 19, 2004
Location: Get to 17 while they are still on 17

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#6 » by daddyfivestar » Thu Jan 7, 2010 12:20 am

Arenas, after his contract is voided and he sits out the rest of the year, provided he doesnt go to jail like Plaxico did... He should be avail for the MLE lol
fareweatherfan
Senior
Posts: 663
And1: 1
Joined: Jan 24, 2008

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#7 » by fareweatherfan » Thu Jan 7, 2010 1:17 am

It is always better in the NBA to have an advantage at C then at PG. Right now our greatest advantage over most teams is our skilled big men and our greatest weekness is our "slow" guards. We would HAVE TO trade at least Bynum to get a significant upgrade at the point, resulting in a significant weakness at C. I am against trading Bynum for any realistic option at PG.
User avatar
96 Til Infiniti
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,831
And1: 4
Joined: Jun 18, 2009

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#8 » by 96 Til Infiniti » Thu Jan 7, 2010 2:45 am

daddyfivestar wrote:Arenas, after his contract is voided and he sits out the rest of the year, provided he doesnt go to jail like Plaxico did... He should be avail for the MLE lol


lol can you imagine that, he did say awhile back that he'd love to play with kobe (and this was during the Smush, Kwame era)
Thank you, Phil.
User avatar
Dr Aki
RealGM
Posts: 35,692
And1: 31,935
Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
   

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#9 » by Dr Aki » Thu Jan 7, 2010 4:02 am

daddyfivestar wrote:Arenas, after his contract is voided and he sits out the rest of the year, provided he doesnt go to jail like Plaxico did... He should be avail for the MLE lol


we used our MLE on artest and our LLE on shannon

most we can offer is the vets min
Image
User avatar
CX44
Analyst
Posts: 3,380
And1: 0
Joined: Aug 08, 2002

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#10 » by CX44 » Thu Jan 7, 2010 4:45 am

If your over the cap you get the MLE every year. The MLE is every other year.
User avatar
AceFresh
Senior
Posts: 677
And1: 3
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
Contact:
     

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#11 » by AceFresh » Thu Jan 7, 2010 11:16 am

Fisher has been utter crap, I never take for granted what he provides during the June stretch, but right now Fish is just a liability and its causing Lakers to climb uphill during games early.


I'm pretty sure if Shannon got the bulk of Fish's mins tonight, Lakers would've won that game.
sisibilio
Head Coach
Posts: 7,213
And1: 1,375
Joined: Nov 18, 2009

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#12 » by sisibilio » Thu Jan 7, 2010 1:08 pm

VIPER8382 wrote:Stephen Curry (absolutely perfect short term and long term, but he would probably cost us Bynum, which I would only do if we got another strong young center back also)

Bynum x Curry/Biedrins would be great but i don't think Warriors even consider it.
If you want to try to measure the elements of basketball that are supposedly unmeasurable, spend a game just watching Marc Gasol.
@MikePradaSBN

Wembanyama was created to end all LeBron vs Jordan debates
daddyfivestar
Banned User
Posts: 5,215
And1: 0
Joined: Jun 19, 2004
Location: Get to 17 while they are still on 17

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#13 » by daddyfivestar » Thu Jan 7, 2010 8:44 pm

Aki wrote:
daddyfivestar wrote:Arenas, after his contract is voided and he sits out the rest of the year, provided he doesnt go to jail like Plaxico did... He should be avail for the MLE lol


we used our MLE on artest and our LLE on shannon

most we can offer is the vets min


It does say "sits out the rest of the year", right? Come on, don't come in here negative nancy when you are so fast to hit the quote button to spout you presumed knowledge that you didn't read the post. I may toss out crazy trades and opinions but I know my cap facts. Unacceptable douche move dude to try and put me on blast like that.
b shaw20
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,381
And1: 60
Joined: Apr 29, 2007

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#14 » by b shaw20 » Thu Jan 7, 2010 8:58 pm

AceFresh wrote: Fisher has been utter crap, I never take for granted what he provides during the June stretch, but right now Fish is just a liability and its causing Lakers to climb uphill during games early.


I'm pretty sure if Shannon got the bulk of Fish's mins tonight, Lakers would've won that game.



co sign on the above, bigtime...I recently posted about _ Fish in the Clippers game thread. There is no better, simpler way to describe Fisher "on the court" for this team.

Liability.

Grant Hill would have fit like a glove on this team at that position. I love the idea of Mike MiIller but you have to think a guy like that is still playing for money and not rings. I would have loved to have picked up Budinger (believe we passed on him, don't recall), but PJ does not like rookies.
daddyfivestar
Banned User
Posts: 5,215
And1: 0
Joined: Jun 19, 2004
Location: Get to 17 while they are still on 17

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#15 » by daddyfivestar » Thu Jan 7, 2010 9:16 pm

b shaw20 wrote:I would have loved to have picked up Budinger (believe we passed on him, don't recall), but PJ does not like rookies.


Correct. Lakers took Patrick Beverly at 42, traded his rights to Miami.

Passed on Budinger (44), Danny Green (46), Marcus Thornton (43) and Patty Mills (55) who should all have NBA careers, some maybe good ones.
User avatar
supaflash
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,670
And1: 131
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Location: A Mile High
Contact:
   

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#16 » by supaflash » Thu Jan 7, 2010 9:47 pm

I was saying we should have taken Budinger with our first round (or kept Tooney ffs)
Thornton would have been a nice fit too, wish we could have traded up for collison though...

How about Bynum for Love/Flynn/Cardinal ?? :D
User avatar
Dr Aki
RealGM
Posts: 35,692
And1: 31,935
Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
   

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#17 » by Dr Aki » Fri Jan 8, 2010 1:35 am

daddyfivestar wrote:
Aki wrote:
daddyfivestar wrote:Arenas, after his contract is voided and he sits out the rest of the year, provided he doesnt go to jail like Plaxico did... He should be avail for the MLE lol


we used our MLE on artest and our LLE on shannon

most we can offer is the vets min


It does say "sits out the rest of the year", right? Come on, don't come in here negative nancy when you are so fast to hit the quote button to spout you presumed knowledge that you didn't read the post. I may toss out crazy trades and opinions but I know my cap facts. Unacceptable douche move dude to try and put me on blast like that.


my bad.

i thought u wanted him immediately
Image
b shaw20
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,381
And1: 60
Joined: Apr 29, 2007

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#18 » by b shaw20 » Fri Jan 8, 2010 3:01 am

supaflash wrote:I was saying we should have taken Budinger with our first round (or kept Tooney ffs)
Thornton would have been a nice fit too, wish we could have traded up for collison though...

damn, bud would have been nice. I watched the kid play in early round of last year's tourney. during the warm up I could tell he was not only athletic, can handle and can shoot. good fit for us.. oh well.


How about Bynum for Love/Flynn/Cardinal ?? :D


No freakn way we should move Bynum. I think he will continue to develop and be more and productive. Outside a major studin return I say we keep him.

Size matters.
ALL HAIL
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,474
And1: 1,213
Joined: Dec 27, 2005

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#19 » by ALL HAIL » Fri Jan 8, 2010 4:30 am

In terms of defensive skill set and size, Larry Hughes would be ideal as a Ron Harper type big, defensive PG who would allow them to switch on the pick and rolls ...

Hughes could be had cheaply next year but he's probably too much of an egomaniac to come to this team to play 24 minutes and to ONLY play defense (cuz he can't shoot a lick ... like Ron Harper).
rugby-hook
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,708
And1: 0
Joined: Sep 16, 2009

Re: We need a triangle PG, not necesarily a regular PG 

Post#20 » by rugby-hook » Fri Jan 8, 2010 4:39 am

I think we are looking at the wrong options. I think LA should be looking at Chris Duhon, Randy Foye, Ramon Sessions or Lou Williams. This guys can guard a PG, shoot better than average and have price tages in the MLE range.

Return to Los Angeles Lakers