| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
daxeqtr
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 423
Location: Southern California
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lakers should just sign Rush to a non-guarenteed contract next year. If he is willing to come back to his old team and coach make him earn his money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LA_Lakers_Rule
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 19482
Location: The X-Files
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
angrypuppy wrote:
| Quote: | | Kwame was cut from the Washington playoff roster after a spat, which in itself was the culmination of a season of Kwame showing up late and seeming lackadaisical. The chief difference between Kwame and Kareem is about 6 inches, in that teams will still clamor for a 7 foot project despite bad history regarding work ethic. |
So true... A player of Kwame's size will alway draw attention regardless of the alledged problems.
The fact that Rush is averaging over 10 ppg in 23 ppg and shooting 35% from behind the arc and is still only 26 years of age is enough reason to consider him. Not to mention that he is Triangle savy and happens to be the 6-6 size guard that Phil likes in his system.
Players can have personality problems with the superiors which can have little to do with their actual ability to contribute.
Look at Robert Horry, we were able to acquire him in part because of an incident that occured and basically a falling out between Horry and Ainge. This had nothing at all to do with his level of talent of ability as proved by how he preformed for us through the ensueing years.
We have no idea what could be going on behind the scenes between Rush and the coaching staff. Considering what we currently have to back Kobe up at the SG position it would be irresponsible to not consider Rush, especially since it is clear that he could maybe be acquired for less $ than he is likely capable of as a result of the specific (unknown) circumstances of his release.
_________________
Rule = win titles  
Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. - Will Rogers ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laker Lurker
Star Player
Joined: 24 Oct 2002
Posts: 7652
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angrypuppy wrote: | | Laker Lurker wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Laker Lurker wrote: | | If Mitch makes the same mistake twice and gets Rush , then he's got to go. If Rush can't make the Bobcats then he's got serious issues. |
Absolutely. Shall he return Kwame too? Kwame was similarly stricken from the playoff roster after a heated exchange, and placed on the trading block. |
Kwame was acquired through a major trade- he was not waived by the WIZ. In fact, Kwame refused an extension offered by the WIZ. Kwame was also the overall #1 pick and his value was high enough to make the lakers pay a high price for him, namely Caron Butler. Getting Kwame was very good risk taking which is paying off now.
On the other hand, Rush fell from a projected lottery pick to the low 20's. Also, the Lakers already had Rush once, and found that he was not worth keeping then. Rush was a risk the lakers already took, and lost. Why is he worth getting now? Rush was waived by one of the worse teams in the league with comments (if you believe them) about his having baggage to boot.
The Kwame-Rush comparison is not valid. |
Save the draft history for the Mitch bashing threads. It's as relevant as bolding in terms of making a rational argument.
My point is valid despite your obtuse attempts to deflect. Kwame was cut from the Washington playoff roster after a spat, which in itself was the culmination of a season of Kwame showing up late and seeming lackadaisical. The chief difference between Kwame and Kareem is about 6 inches, in that teams will still clamor for a 7 foot project despite bad history regarding work ethic. |
What is obtuse is your relating net worth and value to getting left off a playoff roster through a spat. Fact is the WIZ wanted to keep Kwame but he refused their extension whereas Rush was waived( ie; kicked off the team permanetely without getting value in return- meaning , he has no value). There- I didn't boldface anything- hope that you can understand the point anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LA_Lakers_Rule
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 19482
Location: The X-Files
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Laker Lurker wrote:
| Quote: | LA_Lakers_Rule wrote:
| Quote: | | It seems a reasonable thing to consider a player who is only 26 years of age, averaging double figures in points with only playing 23 mpg and shooting 35% from beyond the arc. Sounds to me like a player that could certainly help our team considering these stats (statistically better than what we have now in Mckie, Jackson etc) and his knowledge of the Triangle under his belt. |
This is exactly the point. What's wrong with Rush otherwise? 1. he fell from lottery pick projection to the 20s pick 2) he hit clutch shots for the lakers, not only against Minnesota in the playoffs but against Denver in the regular season and still the Lakers got rid of him and finally, 3) he had those stats with the Bobcats and they waived him not even bothering to trade him. |
Actually Rush was traded because he was only 24 years old and getting very little opportunity behind Kobe along with his repeated health problems involving foot injuries. Considering his health issues and limited opportunities as Kobe's backup it made sense to get something for Rush rather than let him waste away on the bench.
I don't think it had to do with his play at all on the court when he was healthy.
As far as the situation with the Bobcats, we really don't know the underlying problems that may exist. It is clear that Rush can contribute, it is not clear where the attitude problems lie, whether it be a personal thing with the coaches, Rush or both.
Rush is now two years older and appears to be over his health issues. Considering that we could certainly use a shooter off the bench when Kobe is rested it does make sense to look into Rush considering that he can likely be had very cheap under the circumstances.
_________________
Rule = win titles
Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. - Will Rogers ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheMagicalLakerLegend
Starting Rotation
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 127
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tw-lakbfan wrote: | Effort issue?  Phil was so high on Rush. |
What does Phil being high on him have to do with his effort? Rush was always a guy who looks like he's not trying that hard, Bobcats saw it and got tired of it, Rush has always been a guy with talent, but has never and probally will never realize it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SQUAD UP
Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 2457
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rush would be deadly on the Phoenix Suns, i bet they pick him up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmonkee
Star Player
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 5301
Location: Redondo Beach
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pointless to get rush just for the rest of the regular season; we don't have the roster space, he's not eligible for playoffs, and wouldn't break the rotation anyways.
but,
come training camp time, why not send him a invite? I'm pretty sure we're going to bring Profit back, but perhaps we'll need another back-up guard if McKie & JJ don't stick around. He does know the triangle, and we've got the coach that specializes in making players up to their potential. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laker Lurker
Star Player
Joined: 24 Oct 2002
Posts: 7652
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LA_Lakers_Rule wrote: | Laker Lurker wrote:
| Quote: | LA_Lakers_Rule wrote:
| Quote: | | It seems a reasonable thing to consider a player who is only 26 years of age, averaging double figures in points with only playing 23 mpg and shooting 35% from beyond the arc. Sounds to me like a player that could certainly help our team considering these stats (statistically better than what we have now in Mckie, Jackson etc) and his knowledge of the Triangle under his belt. |
This is exactly the point. What's wrong with Rush otherwise? 1. he fell from lottery pick projection to the 20s pick 2) he hit clutch shots for the lakers, not only against Minnesota in the playoffs but against Denver in the regular season and still the Lakers got rid of him and finally, 3) he had those stats with the Bobcats and they waived him not even bothering to trade him. |
Actually Rush was traded because he was only 24 years old and getting very little opportunity behind Kobe along with his repeated health problems involving foot injuries. Considering his health issues and limited opportunities as Kobe's backup it made sense to get something for Rush rather than let him waste away on the bench.
I don't think it had to do with his play at all on the court when he was healthy.
As far as the situation with the Bobcats, we really don't know the underlying problems that may exist. It is clear that Rush can contribute, it is not clear where the attitude problems lie, whether it be a personal thing with the coaches, Rush or both.
Rush is now two years older and appears to be over his health issues. Considering that we could certainly use a shooter off the bench when Kobe is rested it does make sense to look into Rush considering that he can likely be had very cheap under the circumstances. |
These are good points since they relate to value issues- health problems, and specific laker needs that are not filled based on one time , probably never to be repeated, lucky past performace. Price to value is also mentioned which is probably the most valid. Yeah, if lakers can get Rush for Smush's pay, then we should think of getting him. But again, it isn't just Rush then, we have unproven players like Wafer or Profit (unproven because we don't know whether he can come back from injury). Why should we be concerned about losing unproven players compared to getting Rush with those statistics but with health problems and maybe baggage?
The are two risks with unproven players. One- that they will be a bust. But the biggest risk is that they will be solid and end up with the opposition. If Rush was healthy and has no other problems he would be worth looking at- but how would the lakers know about these issues? Getting Rush is a risk too big compared to losing Profit,Wafer, or Sasha. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raptor2k
Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 4426
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Couldn't they have waited a few days before cutting him? :roll:
_________________
"I accepted their challenge. I accepted the doubt of everyone who spoke on my downfall and used their words as fuel. I have a franchise to resurrect, a city of fans to uplift." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luke
Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 5004
Location: Deep Europe
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I say take him !
Even if he can't make the postseason , he could be good off the bench the final RS games, expecially if Kobe has to seat a game or two because of the big T.s
He knows the system, and we need a shooter badly.
Next season we are going to lose George ( no long term for him), even if I hope we can use him for a S&T.
Rush and Profit are good to be our backup SG and SF, and they will be cheap.
JJ and McKie are too old and Mckie will be useful only as a filler next summer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dgrynch
Star Player
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 1095
Location: Somewhere In Uptown
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mitch, RUSH IT!
_________________
"A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste" - United Negro College Fund 1972 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laker Lurker
Star Player
Joined: 24 Oct 2002
Posts: 7652
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Luke wrote: | I say take him !
Even if he can't make the postseason , he could be good off the bench the final RS games, expecially if Kobe has to seat a game or two because of the big T.s
He knows the system, and we need a shooter badly.
Next season we are going to lose George ( no long term for him), even if I hope we can use him for a S&T.
Rush and Profit are good to be our backup SG and SF, and they will be cheap.
JJ and McKie are too old and Mckie will be useful only as a filler next summer. |
How much salary do you think the lakers should pay for Rush? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luke
Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 5004
Location: Deep Europe
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Laker Lurker wrote: | | Luke wrote: | I say take him !
Even if he can't make the postseason , he could be good off the bench the final RS games, expecially if Kobe has to seat a game or two because of the big T.s
He knows the system, and we need a shooter badly.
Next season we are going to lose George ( no long term for him), even if I hope we can use him for a S&T.
Rush and Profit are good to be our backup SG and SF, and they will be cheap.
JJ and McKie are too old and Mckie will be useful only as a filler next summer. |
How much salary do you think the lakers should pay for Rush? |
Need I say minimum ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NestT
Star Player
Joined: 05 Jul 2002
Posts: 4327
Location: The Shining City on a Hill
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
KRush can play 8+ MPG for the Lakers when Kobe rest or is in foul trouble. He was a college SF the lakers tried to convert into a tri pg. That failed miserably but he has all the tools for a NBA SG, at least a backup NBA SG.
I would use the LLE on him. NO way do I compromise the Lakers ability to get a PF or PG in the free agent market by giving him part of the MLE.
If the Lakers are only offering two year MLE deals and there are no young vets at the 1 or 4 that will take it and the choice is between an old and busted McKie/Vlade type and KRush then I take KRush no question.
KRush has proven he can score 10 PPG in 23MPG. That has value. Green and Wafer have not proven anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lts
Starting Rotation
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 392
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:05 pm Post subject: Kareem Rush was waived |
|
|
http://www.nba.com/transactions/current_month_transactions.html
In a surprising move, the Bobcats waived Kareem Rush. The shooting guard did not play on Friday night against the Bulls.
"We had a conversation, and it ended abruptly," Bickerstaff told the Observer Saturday. "The young man has an abundance of talent, and I hope he realizes that."
"The Bobcats are about two things -- hard work and maximum effort," Bickerstaff said. "With that in mind, we think it's best to go in a different direction with Kareem."
================================================
what was happened, can we get him back? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LkrsOvrMia
Star Player
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 1514
Location: Chicago Burbs
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Old news!!!!!!!! You must of overslept.
Go Lakers!
_________________
I recall a day when being a fan of the most storied franchise was a feeling of community. At the end of a day it (LG) should be a "For 'em!!!!!!!!!"
Go Lakers! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lts
Starting Rotation
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 392
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, I just wake up, am i in a dream or just a joke. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rwongega
Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 20510
Location: UCLA -> NY
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd rather have Rush than McKie or Profit any time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wolverine
Star Player
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
Posts: 7846
Location: San Jose, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To think that the Bobcats gave up Ronny Turiaf and a 2008 second-rounder to get him. 
Good steal, Mitch!
(I still wish Kareem the best, and hope he finds his way to a team that could use him.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakeshow03
Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2005
Posts: 3078
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| who would you guys rather have as a backup next year,rush or profit? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NW Laker
Starting Rotation
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 422
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| His D leaves a little something to be desired, but I wouldn't mind having another pure shooter come off the bench. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-Yo-
Star Player
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 1320
Location: SoCal
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are you people hallucinating?
Deer in the Headlights, sh** for brains Kareem Rush.
"Pure shooter". Hah! He's streaky that's the best you can say for him.
I told you this guy had a defective shooting form. Been saying all along he is NEVER going to be a 50% jumpshooter.
Not a good passer. Lazy, brain-dead defender. He got drafted by the Lakers, for cryin' out loud--major media market, and he actually got WORSE while he was here.
I have ZERO interest in a lazy, low-IQ player who doesn't hustle and can't dribble.
IF, IF he was knocking down treys at a 45% clip then maybe look at him... but he's not. He was a terrible draft choice and very disappointing Laker, and now a bottom feeder team doesn't even want him.
Like Sasha--what's the point in a guard who can't shoot.
Kareem is a fool who blew it in LA. What's to think he'll be any better. I'm sick and tired of these unidimensional no D, no hustle, no heart, no brains picks that Mitch comes up with. Watch how Kirilenko plays some time--he's hustling EVERY minute at both ends of the court. Every year he adds new skills. And his reactions are lightning quick.
Rush is just another ganja-toking, over-rated gunner who belongs in Europe or the NBDL. Let him rot I say. He'll be on a street courner begging for spare change in a few years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LA_Lakers_Rule
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 19482
Location: The X-Files
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Laker Lurker wrote:
| Quote: |
LA_Lakers_Rule wrote:
| Quote: |
It seems a reasonable thing to consider a player who is only 26 years of age, averaging double figures in points with only playing 23 mpg and shooting 35% from beyond the arc. Sounds to me like a player that could certainly help our team considering these stats (statistically better than what we have now in Mckie, Jackson etc) and his knowledge of the Triangle under his belt.
|
Laker Lurker wrote:
| Quote: |
This is exactly the point. What's wrong with Rush otherwise? 1. he fell from lottery pick projection to the 20s pick 2) he hit clutch shots for the lakers, not only against Minnesota in the playoffs but against Denver in the regular season and still the Lakers got rid of him and finally, 3) he had those stats with the Bobcats and they waived him not even bothering to trade him.
|
LA_Lakers_Rule wrote: | Quote: |
Actually Rush was traded because he was only 24 years old and getting very little opportunity behind Kobe along with his repeated health problems involving foot injuries. Considering his health issues and limited opportunities as Kobe's backup it made sense to get something for Rush rather than let him waste away on the bench.
I don't think it had to do with his play at all on the court when he was healthy.
As far as the situation with the Bobcats, we really don't know the underlying problems that may exist. It is clear that Rush can contribute, it is not clear where the attitude problems lie, whether it be a personal thing with the coaches, Rush or both.
Rush is now two years older and appears to be over his health issues. Considering that we could certainly use a shooter off the bench when Kobe is rested it does make sense to look into Rush considering that he can likely be had very cheap under the circumstances.
|
These are good points since they relate to value issues- health problems, and specific laker needs that are not filled based on one time , probably never to be repeated, lucky past performace. Price to value is also mentioned which is probably the most valid. Yeah, if lakers can get Rush for Smush's pay, then we should think of getting him. But again, it isn't just Rush then, we have unproven players like Wafer or Profit (unproven because we don't know whether he can come back from injury). Why should we be concerned about losing unproven players compared to getting Rush with those statistics but with health problems and maybe baggage?
The are two risks with unproven players. One- that they will be a bust. But the biggest risk is that they will be solid and end up with the opposition. If Rush was healthy and has no other problems he would be worth looking at- but how would the lakers know about these issues? Getting Rush is a risk too big compared to losing Profit,Wafer, or Sasha. |
I think we agree on this one... I certainly would not want to sign Rush at the expense of losing either Wafer, Profit or Sasha. All three of these players have unquestionably much more upside potential by far than Rush has at this point.
What I would do, which is what I have posted, is release either Mckie (who I don't think will every be effective again) or possibly Jackson as well. Both of these players are currently on our roster. Either cannot come near the level of play that Rush would bring us, imo.
It is clear that Mckie will never average in double figures again and while Jackson still may Rush is around 10 years younger and still has upside potential entering his prime years as to where Jackson is at this point in his career. This is where we would likely be upgrading our team by adding the depth on our bench of a shooting guard to come in and spell Kobe while Wafer and others learn the game.
So considering that we could likely get Rush on the cheap and would likely out perform either Mckie or Jackson and add the fact that Rush is Triangle savy as oppossed to the other two players, I think it is diffinitely a wise thing to look into the possibility of signing Rush to replace either of these players.
This would give us a proven and still young veteran who know the Triangle and allow players like Wafer, Shasha and Profit the time to develop and continue to absorb the intricacies of the Triangle offense which Rush already knows.
As far as a risk of baggage coming along with Rush it is probably worth the risk if we are able to get him cheap. As we all know sometimes perceived baggage doesn't really amount to much as Horry proved after we acquired him relatively cheap as a result of a falling out with Horry's coaching staff at the time. The Horry acquisition could not have been made without the perceived baggage and the result was a huge positive for the Lakers for years to come. There is always the possibility that Rush could prove to be the same type of acquisition returning to a familiar setting and wanting to prove himself worthy as in the case of Robert Horry.
_________________
Rule = win titles
Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. - Will Rogers ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kqiu2210
Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 975
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Should we start a 'Welcome Back Kareem Rush!' thread already? :p |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
STiG909
Star Player
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 1687
Location: Inland Empire
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd rather have Rush than Von Wafer. I don't think Wafer has the focus to ever become a true starter. Rush started to come into his own after we traded him away.
Doesn't anyone remember the chemistry between Rush and Luke? During the playoffs they were huge for us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
