ImageImageImageImageImage

Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes?

Moderators: Kilroy, Danny Darko, TyCobb

nbaintel1
Banned User
Posts: 484
And1: 8
Joined: Jun 28, 2012

Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#1 » by nbaintel1 » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:43 am

Is he still signed with the Lakers? What's his situation? He was sadly our best bench player last year.
User avatar
NOODLESTYLE
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,827
And1: 828
Joined: Jun 16, 2005

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#2 » by NOODLESTYLE » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:45 am

He's currently a free agent and no word yet.

Besides the Lakers, he was arrested last month and is being sued.

Image
That Nicka
Banned User
Posts: 15,350
And1: 34
Joined: Jun 28, 2005
Location: USC

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#3 » by That Nicka » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:47 am

probably not
User avatar
gotokyo
Rookie
Posts: 1,150
And1: 283
Joined: Feb 29, 2012

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#4 » by gotokyo » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:47 am

I hope not
nbaintel1
Banned User
Posts: 484
And1: 8
Joined: Jun 28, 2012

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#5 » by nbaintel1 » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:47 am

NOODLESTYLE wrote:He's currently a free agent and no word yet.

He was arrested last month for traffic violations and resisting arrest tho.

Image

Just traffic violations. No biggie. I hope we resign him though.
ALL HAIL
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,474
And1: 1,213
Joined: Dec 27, 2005

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#6 » by ALL HAIL » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:49 am

Conceivably, they could after releasing both Goudelock and Morris, but in reality his role has now been replaced by both Meeks and Ebanks.

I just hope Ebanks is somewhere shooting in an empty gymnasium as we speak.

If Ebanks lays an egg, the Lakers will regret letting Barnes go to another team for minimum money.
nbaintel1
Banned User
Posts: 484
And1: 8
Joined: Jun 28, 2012

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#7 » by nbaintel1 » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:53 am

ALL HAIL wrote:Conceivably, they could after releasing both Goudelock and Morris, but in reality his role has now been replaced by both Meeks and Ebanks.

I just hope Ebanks is somewhere shooting in an empty gymnasium as we speak.

If Ebanks lays an egg, the Lakers will regret letting Barnes go to another team for minimum money.

Barnes had a 15.5 PER last year. He's also a tough SOB. I really don't see why we don't bring him back.
TheXFactor
Banned User
Posts: 3,976
And1: 31
Joined: Apr 19, 2012

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#8 » by TheXFactor » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:59 am

Barnes got hurt right before the playoffs twice.

Ill pass, he's not dependable
ALL HAIL
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,474
And1: 1,213
Joined: Dec 27, 2005

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#9 » by ALL HAIL » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:06 am

nbaintel1 wrote:
ALL HAIL wrote:Conceivably, they could after releasing both Goudelock and Morris, but in reality his role has now been replaced by both Meeks and Ebanks.

I just hope Ebanks is somewhere shooting in an empty gymnasium as we speak.

If Ebanks lays an egg, the Lakers will regret letting Barnes go to another team for minimum money.

Barnes had a 15.5 PER last year. He's also a tough SOB. I really don't see why we don't bring him back.

I agree.

With Goudelock and Morris gone, there would be one empty spot left at third (possibly second) string SF.

Lakers need third string bench depth in case of injury ... remember Karl Malone getting hurt and Lakers having to play Medvedenko because they were too cheap to re-up Horry the previous summer.

As far as I'm concerned, if the Lakers had resigned Horry in addition to stealing Payton and Malone, we'd be talking about Kobe surpassing Jordan's six-ring total this next season. Having Medvedenko at backup PF instead Horry cost them a ring. My two cents.
User avatar
DEEP3CL
RealGM
Posts: 27,899
And1: 3,207
Joined: Jul 23, 2005
Location: LOS ANGELES,CA.
     

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#10 » by DEEP3CL » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:29 am

TheXFactor wrote:Barnes got hurt right before the playoffs twice.

Ill pass, he's not dependable
Agree, time to move on.
VETERAN LAKERS FAN

SmartWentCrazy wrote:It's extremely unlikely that they end up in the top 3.They're probably better off trying to win and giving Philly the 8th pick than tanking and giving them the 4th.
nbaintel1
Banned User
Posts: 484
And1: 8
Joined: Jun 28, 2012

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#11 » by nbaintel1 » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:42 am

TheXFactor wrote:Barnes got hurt right before the playoffs twice.

Ill pass, he's not dependable

And Bynum gets hurt every year before the playoffs. Who cares. Barnes was dependable and he played great last year.
User avatar
stunnar0b
Starter
Posts: 2,476
And1: 121
Joined: Feb 10, 2010
Location: JUST OG

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#12 » by stunnar0b » Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:08 am

TheXFactor wrote:Barnes got hurt right before the playoffs twice.

Ill pass, he's not dependable
User avatar
gotokyo
Rookie
Posts: 1,150
And1: 283
Joined: Feb 29, 2012

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#13 » by gotokyo » Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:09 am

nbaintel1 wrote:
TheXFactor wrote:Barnes got hurt right before the playoffs twice.

Ill pass, he's not dependable

And Bynum gets hurt every year before the playoffs. Who cares. Barnes was dependable and he played great last year.


If by great you mean was awful you are correct.

He had some okay moments during the regular season but couldn't shoot for sh** in the playoffs, letting teams basically defend 5 on 4 and clogging the paint
draw12
Freshman
Posts: 53
And1: 4
Joined: Jul 09, 2010

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#14 » by draw12 » Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:21 am

hopefully not
User avatar
EArl
RealGM
Posts: 49,975
And1: 13,473
Joined: Mar 14, 2012
Location: Columbus
   

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#15 » by EArl » Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:18 am

no /end thread
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing, Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before;
nbaintel1
Banned User
Posts: 484
And1: 8
Joined: Jun 28, 2012

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#16 » by nbaintel1 » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:13 am

gotokyo wrote:
nbaintel1 wrote:
TheXFactor wrote:Barnes got hurt right before the playoffs twice.

Ill pass, he's not dependable

And Bynum gets hurt every year before the playoffs. Who cares. Barnes was dependable and he played great last year.


If by great you mean was awful you are correct.

He had some okay moments during the regular season but couldn't shoot for sh** in the playoffs, letting teams basically defend 5 on 4 and clogging the paint

He averaged 15.5 PER in the NBA. Anything above 15 is above average with the way PER is setup. Find another player that had that kind of production and is willing to take the minimum. Lakers probably want to resign him but he's asking for too much money.
User avatar
Jajwanda
General Manager
Posts: 8,611
And1: 105
Joined: Jun 01, 2007

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#17 » by Jajwanda » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:20 am

McGrady would be a better bargain. I don't know if he can get over his history with Kuester but he's wanted to be a Laker for a while now. The great thing about him is not only does he score but he can play point forward for sixteen minutes a game, enough time to take the pressure off of Nash and Kobe.
User avatar
Wavy Q
RealGM
Posts: 24,317
And1: 2,390
Joined: Jul 10, 2010
Location: Pull Up
     

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#18 » by Wavy Q » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:35 am

god i hope not
User avatar
ennui
General Manager
Posts: 9,719
And1: 955
Joined: Feb 10, 2011
Location: I see jigaboos, I see styrofoam

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#19 » by ennui » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:55 am

Jajwanda wrote:McGrady would be a better bargain. I don't know if he can get over his history with Kuester but he's wanted to be a Laker for a while now. The great thing about him is not only does he score but he can play point forward for sixteen minutes a game, enough time to take the pressure off of Nash and Kobe.


If he can get over the Kuester thing, he would be a welcome addition. I feel he can be persuaded into a minimum type deal in exchange for the opportunity to win chips.
C'mon, you apes! You wanna live forever?
User avatar
tugs
RealGM
Posts: 16,885
And1: 2,998
Joined: Jul 22, 2010

Re: Are Lakers Still Keeping Matt Barnes? 

Post#20 » by tugs » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:59 am

damn that'll look like an All Star team from years back.

Nash/Bryant/McGrady/Gasol/Howard/Jamison/Artest

:droop:

Return to Los Angeles Lakers