Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Seven Big Questions

Given this summer's weirdness, the Lakers didn't really have much of an offseason. Purple and gold news has simmered some days, boiled others, but has basically run hot since the conclusion of last season's exit interviews. Is J.O. coming? Is K.G. coming? Is Ron-Ron coming? And, most significantly, is Kobe going? Enough rumors and unsubstantiated reports to fill months worth of Us Weeklys.
That's a lot of rumors and unsubstantiated reports.
Of course, now that it's all said and done, after a tumultuous few months followed by an unsteady preseason, the bunch that finished the '06-07 season in disappointing fashion is back, more or less intact (though improved with the exchange of Smush Parker for Derek Fisher). The regular games are about to start, which means questions need to be answered. Seven of them. Why? Because that's the number of good ones I could think of before I started repeating myself.
So without further ado ...
1. How will the "Kobe situation" affect the season?
Might as well get the big one out of the way off the top. While I'm inclined to believe that Kobe isn't going to be moved anytime soon, the reports from ESPN's Chris Sheridan (a guy I find both credible and not particularly hyperbolic) that talks between the Bulls and Lakers have been ongoing and intensive could change that. So maybe he is on his way out faster than I thought. Or maybe not. Which is sort of the point. There's no way this won't be a front-burner issue until some sort of resolution is found, at which point the resolution (likely in the form of a trade) will become a front-burner issue.
At least I know if I get fired, it won't be for a lack of things to write about.
Unfortunately, there's no way for a 24/7 KobeWatch! to be a positive thing for the Lakers. Every game, every question, every everything seen in the context of one guy. Three-game winning streak -- is it enough to keep Kobe happy? Three-game losing streak -- is Kobe going to start pouting? Maybe they should bring in Ron Artest just for the potential to distract. All of this is necessary because the Trade of Kobe Bryant is so monumental that it deserves a) capitalization, b) every opportunity to get the best possible deal because it'll shape the franchise for years to come. But in the short run, it can't be anything but a distraction.
2. Something of a black hole last year (aside from Kobe, of course), how will the Lakers' guard play be this season?
Improved, but not to the point where they'll be the envy of the league. Losing Smush Parker was addition by subtraction. Not only was his play erratic, but his antisocial disposition makes him about as well-suited to be a high-level, team-leading NBA point guard as I am, despite my lack of hops, shot and ability to go left (or right, really). Derek Fisher will provide steady minutes, no doubt, and is a freakin' rock as far as leadership and character go. But for the Lakers' backcourt to show real progress, the kind that translates into multiple wins, it'll take a leap from Jordan Farmar in the backup PG spot, improvement from Sasha Vujacic, and contributions from No. 1 pick Javaris Crittendon. All three look possible, but it's important to temper expectations with the reality that no real games have been played, and we're talking about young players with either little to no experience (J.F. and the Critter), or who haven't shown the ability to succeed at the NBA level (that would be Sasha).
3. What are the Lakers going to do with all those centers? Is anyone going to step up and demand minutes?
OK, that's really two questions. Whatever.
In elementary school, my friend Jason used to make these drawings where he'd morph characteristics of superheroes, monsters and comic book characters into these uber-badass creations that were pretty much unbeatable. That's what the Lakers need to do with their three-headed monster at center. Take Kwame's post D, combine it with Bynum's hands and growing two-way game, with a little of Chris Mihm's offensive smoothosity as seasoning.
Or, failing that, if the Lakers are going to get the best out of their multitude of bigs (toss Ronny Turiaf into the conversation, too) and matchup combinations, they'll need one or two of those centers to play a little PF. It cold be Mihm, who has the ability to hit the mid-range jumper but lacks the foot speed to guard anyone away from the hoop. It could (probably should) be Kwame, who has the physical tools and the experience as an NBA four but seems to lack the will to actually make the move. However it's done, if the Lakers can figure out how to get more minutes for the three-headed monster, it'll serve them well.
In terms of guys stepping up, obviously Bynum has the most potential to make a big jump in production. He's shown flashes of putting together a consistent game on both ends. It's not there yet, by any stretch. Generally one side suffers or the other. In some ways, the question isn't just who will step up, but who is willing?
4. Once he's healthy, is Lamar Odom a three or a four?
Ideally, a three, but to a large degree how you answer this question relates to the answer to the previous questions. If the Lakers can find solid play at the four, enhanced by some of that center depth bolstering the position, it'll give L.O. more time to play the three. There, he should all at once take less physical abuse on the defensive end and be able to better exploit mismatch opportunities on offense. The only downside would be an increased tendency to hang out around the perimeter, instead of moving down to the post where he can be incredibly effective.
This would effectively put Luke Walton in a sixth-man role, one for which he's probably better suited. It would allow him to push the second unit and likely play important minutes down the stretch, but still have his shortcomings on the defensive end protected as much as possible by not requiring the Lakers to expose him for 30-35 minutes a night.
Obviously, strong play from Turiaf could change the equation, but as much as I love Ronny -- what kind of awful human being doesn't love Ronny? -- to expect him to make the jump to starting-caliber power forward is a tall order.
5. What's the best-case scenario for '07-08?
Kobe gets happy, Bynum makes "The Leap," while Kwame transitions smoothly to the four, providing quality minutes there with Ronny while adding depth at center. L.O. comes back strong in mid-November and stays in the lineup for the rest of the year. Luke Walton plays like a Sixth Man of the Year candidate, Farmar becomes a quality backup. Everyone stays healthy. There's taco night at least every other home game in the media dining room, and we either a) finally get that swanky yearly parking pass from The Times or b) find our secret spots around Staples open every night. Lakers rise to near the top half of the W.C., win the first round and push for a surprise spot in the Western Conference Finals.
6. What's the worst-case scenario for '07-08?
The injuries that are currently looming over the Lakers don't cooperate. Odom is more out than in. The respective ankles of Kwame and Mihm don't cooperate, leaving the Lakers thin up front. Walton can't stay in the lineup. Fish disappoints, the defense remains a swinging gate, Kobe's frustration goes up with every loss. The Lakers are unable to move him, but unable to continue forward. Somebody says something that ticks off someone else, and the Lakers find themselves playing without Kobe -- though he remains on the roster. The quality deals the Lakers already find tough to form become even tougher as teams pull back to see if they can get him on the cheap. He sits, the Lakers run out a glorified D-League team and punch a lottery ticket.*
And taco night is totally axed from the menu. Lord help us all if that happens.
7. How many games will the Lakers win this season, and where will they finish?
Again, that's two questions. Oh, well.
Given all the obstacles in front of them, the rosiest scenarios spit out by the wheel-running hamsters in the BK mental computer have the Lakers pushing 50 wins. I'm talking visit the florist for your wife on Valentine's Day rosey. But for all the drama surrounding Kobe, the biggest problems facing the Lakers are much more mundane. Health problems, talent problems. They're simply not that good. They're not that bad, but they're not that good.
The Lakers are a team that needs everyone on board to make a run, and all signs point to that not happening. That Odom will start the season injured isn't a good sign. And we're not talking about a little tweak here. Dude's recovering from surgery. Kwame is only now reentering games he's exited once, and questions regarding how much of the proverbial "warrior" mentality he has should more injuries pop up are legitimately raised. Mihm? He's already said he'll be playing in some pain this year.
We all saw what happens when the available talent on this team thins out. They're deeper than they were last year, but make no mistake -- relative to the better teams in the NBA, the Lakers aren't deep. They don't have a lot of players who would be big rotation players on contenders. They have only two players that would start for most good teams (that would be Odom and that Kobe fella, for those keeping score). They have Bryant, but for how long, and with how much investment into the success or failure of the team? I don't think he'll tank games, but will he have the willingness to do what needs to be done to win (I'm not talking about scoring, but leadership, ball distribution, etc.)?
All told, I see the Lakers to be slightly improved. The good news is that because Ray Allen and K.G. were exported eastward, and the injuries to Elton Brand, Greg Oden and Mike Bibby, the W.C. isn't quite the monster it's been in years past. Their backcourt, a serious problem last season, will be better, but still far from elite. The natural improvement curve from Bynum and Farmar should help, but how much? In my Best-Case Realistic Scenario, I see 48 wins. In my worst, lots of doctor's visits and 37 (why not 36? 39? Who's to say?). I'll settle in right at 45, a seven seed in the West, and gone after the first round.
Sound familiar?

by Brian Kamenetzky
LATimes Blog

No comments: