it makes no sense to say it doesnt make them better when hes replacing LUKE WALTON..LOL who put up 2pts and one rebound a game last year. even at barnes worst case senerio 6pts and 3reb is better then walts numbers while being a better defender and better shooter(even though theres zero proof that barnes will all of a sudden shoot such low numbers with more wide open shots)
All we can do is wait and see, but just so im clear on this, you think
a-he does not help the laker get better
b-he is not a very good defender
c-he has never been a key role player on a team
are all of the above the way you in fact feel about matt barnes?
Yeah Barnes is a 3-point shooter....His career high 36% is the stuff legends are made of lol
i agree with yeah a lil rtb it isnt a big plus but the lakers didnt need a big plus..but it is a plaus/upgrade from last season which is all you need when you are already the champs
yeah trevor ariza wasnt much of a shooter or player as well as brown before becoming a laker. its alot easier to be a better shooter when you are gonna be WIDE OPEN..lol..
its obvious hes letting his personal feelings cloud his opinion of barnes since barnes is a proven off the bench guy
I don't think he makes them better
He's a decent defender. He's not "very good" on that end though. Nothing special.
He was a key role player on the Warriors a few years ago, but other than that he's not exactly key. He actually limited Orlando this past season when it mattered most, and regressed in every playoff series, which has to count for something.
yeah theres no way hes a up grade from luke walton..what ever could we be thinking
He played in Orlando, Pheonix, AND Golden State and proved to be an average to below average on all of those high-level 3-point shooting teams. Ariza played for the Lakers 1 year and had a single good 3-point shooting year.
He didn't play for the kinds of offenses Barnes did, which cater to 3-point shooting, and still manage to be an average to below average shooter like Barnes has.
If you YOU tried out for the Lakers YOU would be an upgrade over Luke Walton. lol. That isn't saying much at all...
At this point, anything was a step up from what Walton was giving the lakers. If you can't notice Barnes for what he is, a hard working, defensive minded guy who can shoot the three (especially when open, which he will be), than you just don't know the game very well. He will fit the role of Ariza, just not to same extent as Ariza did (cause he got more minutes than Barnes will). But he is an upgrade, and they didn't need to make a drastic move, just one that will fill in the holes. The Lakers have done that beautifully with the recent signings. And I just read that they are talking to Shannon Brown trying to work something out by next week.
With that being said, my earlier post predictions of Ebanks and Caracter BOTH not making the active roster is still very wide open...
yeah theres no way hes a up grade from luke walton..what ever could we be thinking. so wait his playoffs this year just erases what he did through out the season?..man the cavs need to go ahead and cut mo williams and antwan jamison. kevin durant prob shouldnt have gotten that extension with how bad he shot against the lakers. ray allen prob shouldnt be resigned because other then that big game he didnt do much. there wold be a bunch of off the bench players that would be out of jobs if GMS were dumb enough to just go by one playoffs. why did teams even try to get joe johnson with how bad he played
Barnes will play a solid role and help the team, especially when they play the elite teams in the league and have to get after it defensively. He is a great insurance policy as well if there is an injury. Nobody has siad he is something spectacular. I just dont understand how people could say he wont help the team be better.
browns agent said chances are good that with the signing of barnes that brown wont be signing with the lakers. kinda sad about that cuz id liek to resign brown
oh yeah marcus gortat was horrible in the playoffs the magic need to just go ahead and cut him along with ryan anderson
rashard lewis shot about the same as barnes and was not a factor at all he needs to be cut
barnes did disapear in the playoffs pretty bad, but he was playing with a bad back that severly limited him. He also still shot 38% from 3 and did a decent job bringing toughness on the court. If he is healthy, he will be fine.
Compare Joe Johnson, Ray Allen, Kevin Durant, Mo Williams, Antwaan Jamison's playoff performance with Matt Barnes' and tell me who had a better playoff. A MUCH better playoff. I'll save you the trouble of looking it up, since all of them fit into the "much better playoff category" in comparison to Barnes.
Come with a better example than that LOL...They had bad playoffs for their All-Star level standards. Matt Barnes played bad for a player that's not very good in the 1st place...HUGE difference
you gotta realize llperez some people just dont know how to seperate there dislike/like for a player from how good (or bad in some cases) a player is.
yeah we are laker fans but nothing we have said is a homer opinion. 8pts and 4reb a game from matt while playing good defense is very very reasonable even in less minutes then he usually gets because of the wide open looks he will have from playing with 2 all nba guys. its not like anyone is saying hes gonna come in challenge for a starting spot and cross people up while putting up double figures a game
its also not liek any lakers are saying theo ratliff is gonna be the great off the bench big man because i dont expect much more out of him then what mbenga did but hes active and a big body.
i just dont see what sense does it make to say adding a pretty good bench player doesnt make a team better whos bench (minus odom) was pretty bad and the new guy is replacing luke walton who when healthy isnt that bad but hasnt been healthy in a minute. just makes no sense
the example isnt the players name its youre point of saying a playoff performance has to count for something which it obviously dont if other teams where tryna sign barnes
yeah, its hard to argue the lakers bench wasnt very good or deep last year and then say a solid bench player being added wont help the team both at the same time.
its pretty obvious that youre opinion is shared by very very few. i havent read/heard any one else say barnes is not a very good player at all. reguardless how YOU feel hes know around the leauge as a pretty good bench player who happened to start for a magic team who was a top 3 team in the nba. i guess any not very good player can do that
exactly...iggy has zero proof to back up his statement that barnes isnt a upgrade and doesnt make the lakers team/bench better. just his personal feelings about barnes
"the example isnt the players name its youre point of saying a playoff performance has to count for something which it obviously dont if other teams where tryna sign barnes"
It does if you're not that good. It won't matter in free agency, but to me as a fan free agency doesn't matter much and it's more about what happens when you take the court. The playoff series isn't the end-all-do-all, but of course you probably didn't read what I said in the rest of this post. Because I broke down reasons that go far beyond the playoffs.
Llperez, I wasn't sure if you were directing your questions at me or someone else, but I'll give it a shot.
1. I don't think there's any doubt that Barnes overall is a plus for the Lakers.
2. Barnes tries hard on defense but he isn't smart and often finds himself out of position. But I give him an A for effort but his defense is overrated because of his effort.
3. He is too inconsistent on the offense end of the court.
Look back at the recent playoffs, there were good reasons why Van Gundy stopped relying on Barnes.
He could have gotten more money from other teams to come in and start. I guess those GM's are idiots. The Lakers just got lucky that he was content with taking less money to play for a winner. He has the tools to be a solid role player, he doesn't have to be special.
I don't see the sense in saying he can't help, it's like saying Bruce Bowen didn't help the Spurs. Bowen never scored much, but he was what he was, a utility player who was defensive minded. Barnes is not Bowen, so don't go on any rant about that. I'm just stating that Barnes will effect the game in a much bigger role than Walton ever could. If that's not an upgrade worth noting, then I just don't get your reasoning...?
"i havent read/heard any one else say barnes is not a very good player at all. "
Read what rtbt said, and what Adi Joseph has said on this site in some other post. I am not the only person that think/knows Matt Barnes isn't that good.
im still tryna find one site where it says the lakers didnt get better by signing barnes (espn,cnnsi,cbssports,fox sport,jim rome,colin calhurd,nbatv, talk at the gym im at now, talking to jazz fans out here who hate the lakers wirth a passion) and i cant find one person who thinks this doesnt make the lakers better( ermember i didnt say wayyyyy or muuuuch better)..especially considering hes replacing luke walton
" I agree he will help the Lakers, but overall, this isn't much of a plus."-rtbt
i agree its not the biggest signing in the world but it helps the lakers which. what ever helps you obviously makes you better when you had ZERO help at that position
Barnes is not a player you have to "rely on", I don't understand some of you people's comments. Your making him out to be some potential star player that will/should change the Lakers drastically. It will be a subtle upgrade, but an upgrade nonetheless.
All you have to do is listen to how reporters, NBA columnists and talk show guys are reacting VERY positively towards the Barnes signing. I guess they are all stupid and don't know the game as well as some NBADraft.net posters, LMAO...It's not worth arguing with someone who won't reason with you.
I say he makes them marginally better. Not much better or worse if at all. This signing isn't worth 76 posts and counting on this site lol. He makes them better *technically* because he'll add whatever production he brings to the table.
Whoa, he has proof of 3 'whole' posters on an amateur message board who think Barnes is overrated, they gotta be correct...damn, I feel dumb...lol
He signed for so little money, it was a steal for what he brings to the table...
exactly dip. people just cant stand us CHAMPS getting better. wayyyyyyy more people think the lakers got better with barnes. even if they didnt think that i know they did when i see jazz fans say DAMN when they heard barnes signed with the lakers. when jazz fans dont liek it then you know its good for the lakers..lol
You said Marcin Gortat would average 15 ppg 11 rpg and 2 bpg if he played for the Celtics. You shouldn't even be INVOLVED in a basketball-related conversation for the next week.
you can also tell it makes us better by looking at the comments on the post after peopel thought barnes was going to the raptors
lol..wow 15 and 11 for the celtics...damn dip you just made my arguement have less merit(lol..j/k)
The Raptors fans also said they were going to be a top 5 playoff team next year after they signed Hedo Turkoglu last year. They are singing a whole different tone this off-season. I don't need them to validate my opinion anyway...
That was my one spur of the moment bad comment, Iggy you have quite more ridiculous remarks/comparisons, don't even start...
All I was trying to make clear, was that Gortat would make a better impact had he had the same minutes as Perkins, didn't mean to go with the 15-11, that was high...
Yeah well, the Raptors were bad, and the Lakers are already the Champs, so it doesn't hurt them, what is your point by that statement???
@rtbt, in regards to the reasons stan stopped relying so much on barnes in the playoffs, as i have pointed out a few times in this thread, it was largely becasue he was playing through a bad back. Stan openly said that and watching barnes play he looked stiff. I saw him step up in the playoffs for the warriors in the past and play solid ball for the last 4-5 years to know better then to put a ton into what he did in the playoffs when he wasnt at 100%.
Maybe I should start making dumber comments more often, cause it seems if I make one bad one, it's glamorized more than a bunch of bad ones (Iggy)...LMAO, whatever though, I don't care, I can be wrong sometimes and actually ADMIT IT
"Compare Joe Johnson, Ray Allen, Kevin Durant, Mo Williams, Antwaan Jamison's playoff performance with Matt Barnes' and tell me who had a better playoff. A MUCH better playoff. I'll save you the trouble of looking it up, since all of them fit into the "much better playoff category" in comparison to Barnes."
Ok when you compare Barnes to those guys, then there is something wrong with your expectations of ROLE PLAYERS and honestly, it makes your opinion invalid on this subject. Those guys have been all-stars before. They aren't bench players. Barnes is not an all-star caliber player at all. He is a solid ROLE PLAYER. Teams have depended on those guys to win games at some point in their career. Guys like Barnes aren't depended on to win games. Barnes is a bonus to what the Lakers are trying to do. Compared to the Lakers' bench last year, Barnes is a much needed upgrade to their bench because it was sporadic. Barnes outperforming any of those guys in the playoffs will be an anomaly, and Barnes' role is not the same as those guys.
I made like 3-5 bad comparisons out of more than 8,000 posts lol...And only 2 have been proven :)
You were trying to make clear that Gortat could average 15 ppg 11 rpg and 2 bpg. You were making clear EXACTLY what you said. And you should go to sleep for it smh
im going by the non raptors fans who said the barnes signing was good for them. not that i had to because every sports network and talking nba head is in agreement that barnes makes the lakers/there bench better compared to two people( you and adi) who thinks other wise. no different then some guys who think kobe isnt that good of a player
3-5 is YOUR opinion, but I've noticed you say a lot of dumb &$#%#&@!, like I said, I DONT CARE. I'm not looking for your approval of what I say, so your input means little to me. But saying Barnes isn't an upgrade from Walton is just dumb...
like i said before its not the players im comparing its the comment of a players playoff performance in one season should count for something. i dont think anyone is comparing barnes to the players just sayign that the comment of "his playoff performence has to count for something" when its doesnt on top of barnes not being completely healthy
dont be like those people who try to turn things around liek if i said some hs or college guy is a great player then some dummy says " so youre saying hes as good as jordan or kobe because they are also great players"
But Jimmer Freddette will be a "very good NBA player" right??? LMAO...I guess we will see...
Steriod, plaease read what was said to me and how I respond. In no way did I compare them to Barnes, the person that ASKED the question (stanfordhoops) was the one that made the comparison.
Lol, ok. I say alot of dumb stuff. Alright haha.
"But saying Barnes isn't an upgrade from Walton is just dumb..."
When did I say that? I said the exact opposite of that lol.
if barnes is a upgrade from walton then that obviously makes the lakers better
"Lol, thank you rtbt. I've never been a big Matt Barnes guy. He's honestly not that good of a player at all. He's tough, but he doesn't make the Lakers better or worse."
Your words, not mine, isn't that the same as saying they didn't make an upgrade??? I'm confused...He doesn't make the Lakers better, but that's not the same as saying they didn't make an upgrade???