share

The Metta situation set us back ....

mitztazohta
Registered User
Joined: 04/29/2013
Posts: 37
Points: 43
Offline
The Metta situation set us back ....

Lakers should have kept Metta and instead got rid of Blake. I do understand that in regards to salary and funds, Metta was the logical choice over Blake but that does not relate to the actual game by any means.

Let us talk ....

Farmar, Young, Wes and Hill make for a very mean, fast and athletic bench. Yet we got rid of Metta and kept Blake which sets up a few bad looks. First, because of his OG status Blake will probably get minutes (at least early in the season) that 100% belong to Farmar. Second, Wes and Young will most likely be starters on opening night. A starting 5 of Nash, Young, Wes, Pau and Kaman with a bench of Hill and Farmar isn't as deadly as Nash, Young, Metta, Pau and Kaman with a bench of Farmar, Wes and Hill running wild. When Kobe comes back, it could have been Nash, Kobe, Metta, Pau and Kaman with Farmar, Young, Wes and Hill. Keeping Hill with those bench players is more logical because he fits their style much more than Kaman would. Either way, that team would have been 9 deep with a Fast 4 coming off the bench.

The Lakers could have even had tried a bench of Blake, Farmar, Young, Wes and Hill (10 deep!!!) had they kept Metta and not used their amnesity clause on anyone. Blake can't run like those other 4 but with Metta still in the roster, the Lakers could could have at least gave it a shot.

Tuff times ....


RSS: Syndicate content