Quote:
|
Harper for most of his tenure with the Bulls did not even play half the game (minute-wise) How can he be considered the best ever when that is the case? He only held down the fort for ~20 minutes a game. And the Lakers would have won their 1st ring without Harper, like they did the ones after he left.
|
Check the stats:
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ron_ha....html?nav=page
Harper played 25.13 mpg. Not jaw dropping but he only played 19.9mpg after coming off his knee issues and if you look carefully at the numbers, his minutes actually increased as he grew more and more fimilar with the triangle. During those stints, he averaged about 1 turnover. Think what you may about Harper but I got my own opinion based on what I saw and what the numbers tell me.
Quote:
|
I never said Harper was a pure point guard. But he wasn't a "gunner" while he was with the Bulls and he played defense, which Crawford doesn't. And that is what this is about...how Crawford (who is a no defense gunner) would fit in with the tri.
|
Well, you can put it this way the Crawford could be a solid player in the triangle considering he's a big guard and has had experience playing in the system. If you look closely at Harper's early years, he played the same kind of game as Jamal did; a versatile 2 guard that could handle the ball.
Quote:
|
They split it with Kobe. Replace Kobe with Crawford and there is no one to run the team as Crawford is not capable of that.
|
If your talking about someone to initiate the offense, you still have 3 solid ball handlers and distributors with Jamal Crawford, Lamar Odom and Luke Walton. Although you won't have the same star power as you once did, the triangle was predicated on guys being able to find good shots within the system. If they work as a team, I don't see any reason why the Lakers won't at least be competitive. In addition to that, Crawford is no scrub either considering he could put up 20ppg if you give him the ball.
Quote:
|
Farmar started in the playoffs.
|
My mistake actually. Your right. I don't know what made me think otherwise.
In the context of your original point (which was that several smaller contracts are easier to move than 1 big contract)they didn't do so well. The only player they traded was Skinner. They still have Thomas for 3 more overpriced years. The Lakers would be better off with the better players in Francis or Marbury and their contracts (which are shorter than Craw and QRich's)[/quote]
Well, the Kings needed PF's and is why I believe they did not look to actively shop Kenny Thomas. He had a hefty contract attached to his name but the guy can put up a double double and that is something that I'm sure all teams are interested in. The guy was a starter both seasons as a King despite them signing and commiting alot of money to bringing in Abdur-Rahim. I think that says something about his ability as a player.