[I]Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.
Ron can play it, but his urge to freelance on occasion, and jack a shot, has to be suppressed.
Tin wouldn't work because he's got a suspect jumper and he isn't particularly athletic or long.
I think Tinsley's lack of shooting is the big reason he would be such a poor fit in the Tirangle.
Think back to when the Lakers had their 3 titles. One reason they were so tough was because Fisher, Fox, and Horry could all shoot it from deep leaving space for Shaq and Kobe to do their damage.
If Tinsley were a better shooter he'd fit. The triangle really is only as good as its roster in regards to players who can shoot/pass/attack the basket, and make proper decisions off of reading and reacting to what a defense gives them.
I am a little disappointed - broadly I would like to see more teams get better as opposed to the better teams get even better. Remember Barkley speaking last year about how there were handful of good teams and a lot of bad ones. Makes for less entertaining viewing.
I love the Rockets front office. They become the only team to heed the Ron Artest-one year warning and then they let him walk and focus entirely on Ariza. The Lakers are going to regret this. By the way, though Ron might still be a tough defender, he can't hang with quicker 2s and 3s the way he used to and the way that Ariza can. Not to mention that Ariza could take the pressure off of Kobe with his shooting in ways Ron won't be able to (Ariza was 40-84 from three in the playoffs. By comparison, Artest was 23-83). Also, as mentioned above, Ariza is a much nicer fit for the triangle. With this move, I now think that SA is better than LA and would take them to win the WC any day.
Last edited by rexnom; 07-03-2009 at 01:24 AM.
what concerns me is Artest is the alpha male automatically now. ron's street persona is somewhat real whereas kb24 gained his respect with talent. Could be some clashing
anyway we want to dissect it...what happens with two alpha males???
phil can make it work though artest is his new rodman i guess. Kobe will have to pull his best work managing personalities to date.
I do believe in karma, so ditching Ariza for ron ron may be turbulent.
For the money, this is a steal. Artest is going to give the Lakers a tough hard-nosed player who can score both inside and outside and take some of the perimeter defense pressure off Kobe. Hello Kobe, you just found your Scottie Pippen.
This just means more Ron Artest press conferences, which I for one think is fantastic.
Phil Jackson won't be coaching this team full-time next year and probably not at all in two years. What are the odds of Ronnie not telling Brian Shaw or Kurt Rambis to **** off?
He might, but I think the Lakers will at least have one championship with Artest, which will make it worth it regardless.
This is starting to look like the 80's when the only two teams that mattered were the Lakers & Celtics. Now its the Lakers & Cavs, then everyone else.
I don't know if this is good or bad for the league.
Kobe is going Jordan on us. How similar is it getting.
Jordan returned from baseball with the chip to prove the first 3peat was no fluke, Kobe is coming out of the post-Shaq era to prove the same thing.
Jordan got Rodman, Kobe gets Ron. I mean that one is virtually the same.
Kobe may not be Jordan, but it sure feels like he's trying to be. If he gets the 2nd 3peat there sure is going to be a lot of talk about the comparison.
I don't either, but it's fascinating. I thought with 30 teams, the days of super-stacked teams were over. Maybe not.
The Lakers got worse, not better.
Here's to open mindness and the death of prejudging situations.Won't change my opinions much on Ron, though.
Hicks, seriously, let me put mine out there too then.
If Hansbrough doesn't flop it will surprise me. There are some wildcards though:
1) The Pacers play up-tempo which means good chances for bigger stats
2) The Pacers are front-line weak which means he'll get playing time regardless.
3) Pacers fans love a hustle player and will rate and support him higher than his actual talent output.
Won't change my opinion that he's not an NBA player though.
Yes, it does sound reasonable doesn't it.
People do this stuff all the time, they justify an unreasonable POV because the person "deserves it". I'm not saying you must love Ron. I'm saying let him continue to earn his old rep, or let him earn a new rep.
Let him earn whatever view you have of him rather than making a list of reasons why you don't have to let him prove you wrong. I mean frankly if he's the guy you think he is then he will cause a problem. When that happens I'll go back to saying he was the same old disruption he always was and that your opinion turned out to be correct.
What bothers me is the number of people covering their butt with "even if you are right I'm not going to agree because of my list of qualifiers".
The qualifiers don't even work anyway because you are saying that if Ron has a coach that deals with him the right way he's fine, true for most players, and that if Ron has a good leader he's fine, true for a lot of players.
btw real example from me - I have criticized JOB plenty, but if you were to review my comments you'd see MANY posts where I have said that the bottom line is that JOB will have a shot to prove me wrong with what he gets the team to do. I think he's a flawed coach, but he gets the chance to prove me wrong.
To me his rep and antics overshadow this true basketball flaw. Everyone is so worried about him flipping out when the real concern remains whether or not Ron will be limiting his bad shot selection in that night's game.
I think the jury's still out on whether the Cavs got better. It's an investment in an older player who is that much more likely to lose games to injury. And a player in that situation, going in and out of the line-up -- weeks in, weeks out -- can disrupt a team's season. Pacer fans recall that well, I would think.
Alternately, a healthy Shaq mandates a slower half-court style of play, when the Cavs showed better this last season when they struck quickly. That is a concern similar to the concern Phoenix should have had before the Porter / Shaq experiment.
Either one of those factors could make the Cavs move a bad move, but we won't know until the season plays out. At least I understand the Cavs' motivation.
Not sure I can say the same for the Lakers.
[~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!
The hate for Ron here is somewhat understandable (although at a certain point you gotta let go I think), but you guys are letting your feelings blind you from the truth if you think Ariza is even close to as good a player Ron is, let alone better...that's just absurd.
Ron Artest and Yao Ming, by themselves, gave the Lakers a good series. Don't forget that.
But the qualifiers do have some merit. Waltzing into a perfect situation in LA, laying low for one year and winning a championship that LA probably could've gotten w/o him does not even approach all the idiotic things he has done in the past, proportionately, in terms of degree of good act weighed against degree of bad act kind of thing. I imagine there are things Ron could do in order to "prove wrong" posters like Hicks et. al, but there would have to be more—probably starting with a heartfelt apology to all the fans of franchises he's screwed over, actually making good on his promise to buy back everyone's jerseys (I don't own one btw), honing in his idiotic shot-selection, etc.
You stab me in the back, two years later you donate $100 to the homeless. Is my opinion of you going to change drastically? And is it unreasonable if it doesn't?
You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?