ESPN

The Nuggets played Game 5 like their season depended on it (can't imagine why) and the Lakers played like they wanted one more view of the Rocky Mountains before next season.

As a result, there will be a Game 6 Thursday night in Denver. Lakers lose, 102-99 Tuesday at Staples Center.

On tonight's edition of Lakers Late Night, we get into a very disappointing loss, starting with ...

• A befuddling lack of intensity early in the game.
• Poor perimeter shooting, allowing Denver to collapse consistently on L.A.'s bigs in the paint and help take them out of the game. Which, in turn, seemed to take Andrew Bynum out of the game defensively.
• A huge fourth quarter for Kobe Bryant, who found himself short on support.
• The practical implications of losing Tuesday's game. Fair to say the Lakers did themselves no favors.

Click below for postgame video from Bryant, Mike Brown, Bynum, Gasol, Jordan Hill, and more:

(Read full post)

To be perfectly honest, I haven't spent much time thinking about awards season this year. The big one (MVP) seems pretty obvious (LeBron James). It's hard to argue with Gregg Popovich as Coach of the Year. If James Harden doesn't win Sixth Man honors, the world might spin off its axis. Tyson Chandler had his hooks on Defensive Player of the Year for a while -- rightly so -- and Kyrie Irving is a near-lock for Rookie of the Year. The right guys, or at worst extremely credible guys, are winning thus far, so there's really not all that much to discuss.

Save maybe one. The strangest of the postseason awards issued by the NBA is Most Improved Player, given today to Orlando Magic power forward Ryan Anderson. As my fantasy team attested, Anderson had a very good year, averaging a career high 16.1 points and shooting 39.1 percent from 3-point range, but critics will point note his advanced numbers are about what they've always been, and Anderson simply benefited from moving into the starting lineup.

Someone like Milwaukee's Ersan Ilyasova, who finished second, made far larger statistical improvements.

The basic problem with the M.I.P. is the context: A player can only be so good going into the year and have a legitimate shot to win. The soft bigotry of low expectations, and all that. Which brings us to Andrew Bynum, who finished tied for fourth with Detroit center Greg Monroe. Bynum has for a while been called the second best center in the league behind Dwight Howard, the only guy worth Orlando's time in a big man swap. He's also been very effective when healthy, entering the year riding a streak of four straight seasons with a PER north of 20, which Bynum pushed to five in 2011-12. I.E., he was already seen as too good to have a real shot at M.I.P.

This season, Bynum's advanced numbers weren't all that different from ones posted earlier in his career (a knock against his candidacy, maybe, but applicable to Anderson as well), but he played a much different and more difficult role. His minutes were up, along with the level of responsibility. More importantly, Bynum had never seen the double and triple teams routinely sent his way over the course of the season. Relative to earlier in his career, producing at similar statistical levels was much harder. Still, he stayed healthy, made his first All-Star team, and firmly established himself as an elite NBA player.

Last week, ESPNLA's Dave McMenamin made a strong case for Bynum as M.I.P., posing the most fundamental question: "What's more impressive: going from average to good or going from good to great?"

I'd say the latter. That only 28 of 121 voters put Bynum on their ballots indicates either people disagree, or more likely thought Drew was already too good to win, showing again why this is the goofiest of all NBA honors.

Through two games against the Nuggets, it's hard to find much fault with the play of Andrew Bynum. He dominated Sunday's Game 1, hauling in 13 rebounds and with a swateriffic! 10 blocked shots (plus countless more altered (alteredariffic!)), anchoring the Lakers defense against Denver's attack. In Game 2 he wasn't as influential defensively, but finished with 27 points on the other end, plus nine boards, two assists, and two blocks.

Another honest day's work, for sure.

Still, after Bynum said he was disappointed in his game, a stance he explained again following practice Thursday afternoon. "Could have been a better performance, and you don’t get to get it back. I could have made more shots, get some more boards. That’s really it. I missed a lot of opportunities,” he said.

I think most people are willing to cut him some slack given the level of production, but the contrast in stat lines did raise the question -- and I mean that literally -- of "which Bynum" the Lakers would rather see. “I thought he played well in both games," Mike Brown said, addressing the point. "Obviously when he’s able to impact the game on both ends of the floor as much as he did in Game 1, even though he scored a whole heck of a lot more, you like that better. Realistically, I think he can do both. I think he can still impact a game defensively or control a game defensively, and he can score."

Asked the same question, Kobe Bryant said the game largely determines the performance.

“Whatever the game dictates. Game 1, because of what they were doing defensively and just the flow of the game, that’s what he did. Game 2, because just of the flow of the game, he had 27 points. It’s playing the game that’s in front of him."

There's no question Bynum has to be a presence for the Lakers to be an elite defensive team. If he must choose between domination offensively or defensively, it's a no brainer defense wins. Except why would he have to? The two aren't mutually exclusive. He's frequently been both at different points throughout the season, and certainly into the first two games of the playoffs. In Game 1, Bynum didn't put up points, but was a key cog in the Lakers attack thanks to good work recognizing and passing out of double teams, leading to open shots on the perimeter. He's a big reason the Lakers were 6-of-12 from 3-point range heading into the fourth quarter, and outside shooting was a big reason the Lakers won. Tuesday, he didn't block 10 shots but still put in a pretty solid effort defensively, and meanwhile took advantage of more openings at the other end, scoring efficiently on a night the Lakers needed their stars to be stars.

Bynum's game can't be expected to look the same every game, at least not judged by the stat sheet. What matters most is his level of engagement, and through two games he's been great in that regard.

When that happens, the results are usually strong.

The news is here.

The NBA released a statement regarding the suspension:

"The Lakers' Metta World Peace has been suspended for seven games without pay for striking the Thunder's James Harden in the head with his elbow, the NBA announced today.

The incident, which resulted in a Flagrant Foul Two and ejection, occurred with 1:39 remaining in the second quarter of the Lakers’ 114-106 victory over the Thunder on April 22 at Staples Center.

“The concussion suffered by James Harden demonstrates the danger posed by violent acts of this kind, particularly when they are directed at the head area," NBA Commissioner David Stern said. "We remain committed to taking necessary measures to protect the safety of NBA players, including the imposition of appropriate penalties for players with a history of on-court altercations."

The suspension will begin with the Lakers’ next game at Sacramento on April 26. The remaining games of the suspension will be served over the next six games in which the player is eligible and physically able to play, including this season’s playoffs."

Lakers General Manager Mitch Kupchak issued a statement on behalf of the team:

"Metta has for the most part been a model citizen both on and off the court since joining the Lakers. Still, his most recent lapse in judgement is not to be condoned or accepted. His actions could have seriously injured another player, and his absence during this suspension will hurt our team as well. While we accept the league’s decision, we will be supportive of Metta and try to help him be more professional on the court.”

Via ESPN Dallas' Jeff Caplan, Lamar Odom, who didn't play Wednesday when the Lakers beat the Mavs in Dallas, did not report back to the team Monday.Dallas head coach Rick Carlisle gave no timetable for Odom's return.

"Lamar is not here today," he said Monday. "He is still dealing with a family matter and the hope is he'll join us soon, and we'll update you when there's an update."

It's a stone cold lock the Mavs won't bring back Odom next season, but there has even been some water cooler/sports talk radio speculation they might even buy him out this year. Carlisle gave no indication that was the case, but that the idea sounds plausible indicates just how much Odom has struggled. I suspect Dallas holds on to him, because a) Mark Cuban would owe Odom money anyway, b) he might land on a rival, and c) the potential good he'd do for the Mavs if he improves is too valuable. They've waited this long, and might as well see it through.

If Dallas did pull the trigger on a buyout, talk of a return to Los Angeles would be rampant, but given Odom left town I'd be surprised if the Lakers showed much interest.

They need help, but I suspect that ship has sailed.

This year, Andrew Bynum will participate in his first All-Star Game, having won the balloting among Western Conference centers and the accompanying starting gig in a landslide. By definition, this means he'll be watching the game this year.

In the past, Bynum hasn't made a habit of tuning in.

Last season, for example, while the NBA circus was at Staples Center, Bynum was at the Naval Air Station in Lemoore.

"We were checking some planes out. Flight school. It's super fun, man. That stuff's crazy. Then they do the flying shows and all kinds of stuff. It's great," he said.

Bynum never actually sat in the cockpit of a jet, in part because he was worried about accidentally triggering the automatic eject mechanism while trying to wedge his seven-foot, 285-pound body into such a small space. But assuming he actually fit, Bynum said he'd love to actually ride shotgun (or whatever the backseat is called in one of those things) on a real flight.

I asked if he could actually do it, given how many restrictions players typically have in their contracts against dangerous activities. Bynum dismissed the concern with a smile.

"C'mon, man, it's the Navy!" he said. "If we can't trust the Navy, who can we trust?"

I guess at this point, the only think left is to figure out what his Top Gun name would be.

The Lakers split four games with Andrew Bynum on the sidelines, thanks to his suspension. Saturday against the Nuggets, he returns to the lineup.

How will it impact the Lakers going forward? That's the question for this week's Forum, with the Kamenetzky Brothers and ESPN.com's Kevin Arnovitz.

Kobe Bryant said Thursday he believes NBA owners definitely scuttled the Chris Paul trade to prevent the Lakers from getting another star. He'll get no argument from our mother.

Her take:

"It's like when you go shopping with the girls and you tell your friend a dress looks bad on her, because you're jealous and don't want her to look better than you."

A reminder never to hit the department store with Dan Gilbert.

For Lakers fans, the focus on Chris Paul and Dwight Howard over the last few weeks has grown into something close to obsession.

In that context, Wednesday was not a good day.

The morning began with news the Orlando Magic were talking seriously with the New Jersey Nets to send Howard up the coast. Then, word spread the Magic simply weren't talking. At least not right now, and not until offers improve substantially and/or they're fully convinced Howard can't be persuaded to stay. If that wasn't disappointing enough, a day after snagging Chauncey Billups essentially for nothing, the Clippers went ahead and pulled off the Chris Paul deal. Suddenly the team with the buzz, the great young stars, the exciting brand of basketball, and high-end upside wears red, white and blue.

Strange days indeed.

Monday morning in the wake of CP3-to-LAC 1.0, I prepped a post praising the Clippers for pulling off not just a quality trade on the floor -- Paul running pick-and-roll with Blake Griffin is enough to make any hoops fan salivate -- but one giving them legitimacy they've never had. A genuine superstar said he was willing to go there, and give them two years. Seems silly to a Lakers fan, but it's monumental for the Clippers as an organization. I wrote how the Lakers (who, by the way, should have Paul on their roster right now), needed to remain patient, and not overreact to a moment that will surely upset their front office and fan base alike.

That post never saw daylight, but turned into this one. The message was the same. The Lakers can't freak out. They have to count to 10 and understand that fundamentally, nothing about what happens to them going forward changes. Once the league decided (a) Paul wasn't going to be a Laker, and (b) it wanted a package of prospects and picks the Lakers simply couldn't compete with (not without help, at least), CP3 wasn't coming here.

Which leaves Howard.

He's off the market today. Probably tomorrow, too, and I'm even willing to push it into next week. But at some point, Howard will return. Otis Smith will start taking phone calls, this assuming he really ever stops.

The problem for the Lakers is one of timing, because fundamentally, that obsession with Howard/Paul is based on two basic fears surrounding the team. First, that it's not good enough to win a title this season, squandering one of Kobe's last years as a truly elite player. Second, that the Lakers don't have another superstar in the fold to take over for Kobe when that day comes, ensuring a seamless, star-to-star transfer of power. Kobe runs his flag down the pole, the other guy runs his up. Easy peasy.

Except it's very difficult to do both of those things at the same time. Rebuilding, which is really what we're talking about here, is never a fully painless process in the NBA.

Think of a Venn diagram in which one circle is "Improving Now" and the other is "Securing the Future." The overlap between the two, that sweet spot where the colors change and all good things happen, isn't very big. Even the original deal for Paul, sending out Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol and bringing back CP3 and the same $8.9 million trade exception they eventually got from Dallas, didn't make the Lakers better right away. They would have had massive holes to fill in the frontcourt, and no clear path to Howard save everyone assuming it had to be the next move.

Maybe it was. We'll never know.

(Read full post)

EL SEGUNDO-- In the wake of NBA Commissioner David Stern’s stunning spike of a proposed three-team trade ultimately sending All-Star point guard Chris Paul from the league-owned New Orleans Hornets to the Los Angeles Lakers, Player’s Association president Derek Fisher said the union will take a wait-and-see approach.

“We’ll continue to monitor the situation, and it seems to change every few minutes. It’s hard to say what decisions will be made until this thing plays itself out, because there’s so much at stake for so many different players and teams involved,” Fisher said. “Hopefully a solution is found sooner rather than later.”

Still, Fisher made his position on the matter clear, and in the wake of the ratification of a new collective bargaining agreement following months of labor strife showed little support for Stern’s decision.

“I disagree with the NBA or Commissioner Stern or the owners’ ability to hold up a trade in the fashion that they have,” Fisher said. “In a sense, it flies in the face of the months that we spent negotiating a collective bargaining agreement agreeing to take such a smaller percentage of [Basketball Related Income] in exchange for freedom of movement in the system. There shouldn’t be arbitrary reasons why guys can or cannot get traded. If two teams want to make a deal and things work and things work and it’s within the parameters and the boundaries of the CBA, it shouldn’t be held up for reasons other than those things.”

Fundamentally, he said, the league is in an untenable position, and noted a warning sent last year by his former coach. “Phil [Jackson] touched on it last year, I think. Where it’s just dangerous for the league to actually have ownership of a team to begin with, because of these type of circumstances.”

In a statement Friday afternoon, Stern said "final responsibility for significant management decisions lies with the commissioner's office in consultation with [Hornets] team chairman Jac Sperling."

"All decisions are made on the basis of what is in the best interests of the Hornets," he continued. "In the case of the trade proposal that was made to the Hornets for Chris Paul, we decided, free from the influence of other NBA owners, that the team was better served with Chris in a Hornets uniform than by the outcome of the terms of that trade."

Thursday evening, NBA spokesman Tim Frank said the league blocked the deal for “basketball reasons.”

Sources have told ESPN.com’s Chris Broussard and Marc Stein the Lakers, Hornets, and Houston Rockets are revisiting the trade, and are “hopeful” of reconfiguring the terms of the deal in a way satisfying the league office.

It takes a lot to unite the world of NBA fans and observers on the side of the Lakers, but credit David Stern for finding a way, killing the proposed trade sending Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol to New Orleans for Chris Paul.

Where everything goes from here remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: The Lakers lose in the exchange, the only question is to what degree. With a little luck, the damage will be limited, but there's a legitimate chance the repercussions from Thursday's events could reach well into the future.

Potential problems can be seen in near and long term:

• As Andy laid out, the Lakers can't unring the bell. While Gasol will be in El Segundo for the first day of camp, Odom's feelings are clearly hurt. How do the Lakers try to repair those relationships?
• If the Lakers try to trade them again, ignoring for a moment the incredible level of uncertainty thrust into the system by the NBA, they'll be doing so from a position of weakness. Opposing GMs will know the context of every offer containing Odom and Gasol, and the perceived need for the Lakers to get them out of town.
• Even if the league decides to reverse its decision -- unlikely, I think -- the Lakers still lose out. The trade would leave Mitch Kupchak with gaping holes in his frontcourt. No starting or backup power forward, no backup center. I find it impossible to believe Kupchak wasn't prepared to address those needs, but now his hand has been shown to every GM across the league. Doesn't mean he still can't make something happen, but again, Kupchak would be doing so from a position of weakness.
• Time becomes L.A.'s enemy. Hours matter right now, and the Lakers could be hung up for days. If Paul files suit to force the deal through, at what point is there a resolution? What are the Lakers allowed to do in the meantime? Can they trade Odom or Gasol somewhere else? In this compressed period for transactions, even a short delay in L.A.'s ability to engage with the market means many potential targets for Kupchak will already have moved. It's conceivable, at least, the Lakers could be stuck for days, maybe even weeks, while the legal system sorts out the particulars. If that happens, they lose no matter the ultimate outcome.
• There's a clock on the amount of time available to the Lakers to acquire Paul and sign him to an extension paying max money. If that date passes, what happens?
• How does Mike Brown, a meticulous planner already adjusting to a compressed season and limited practice in his first run with the Lakers, work around a situation going headfirst into the rabbit hole?
• Has the well for opposing GMs negotiating with the Lakers been poisoned, because they know every transaction will be scrutinized more heavily? Is it worth the trouble?

In an effort to address perceived needs, the Lakers sent a four-time All-Star and the reigning NBA Sixth Man of the Year to bring back Paul. If that deal isn't acceptable, how will the league react to a different one?

Keep in mind, whether the trade is wise or not -- certainly some very smart basketball minds thought it was a bad one for L.A. -- the Lakers are trying to set themselves up for the future. Despite all the apparent whinging from small- and mid-market owners, the new collective bargaining agreement affords them a very limited window to do so. Sign-and-trades for taxpaying teams are only available for this and next season. Extend and trades, like the one sending Carmelo Anthony to New York last year, have also been limited. Free-agent options are almost nonexistent.

Because the rest of the league flipped out and Stern caved, we may never get a chance to find out if the long-term provisions of the new agreement actually do what many owners hope.

Maybe the Lakers repair their relationships with the "traded" players. With tampering charges now flying around regarding the Nets and Dwight Howard, maybe the Lakers are able to make that deal instead. Maybe much of the potential damage dissipates and years from now we all reflect on how the Lakers actually dodged a bullet. It's certainly possible, as the Paul acquisition came with real risk to the Lakers.

If not, the fallout could be measured in seasons.

You have to hand it to Phil Jackson for his impeccable sense of timing.

Back in 1998, as soon as he walked away from basketball for the first time because he knew the Chicago Bulls were going to be dismantled from their championship form, the league entered into a lockout that cut the 1998-99 season to 50 games.

This spring, when he retired for what he vowed to be for good (even though Mike Wilbon begs to differ), the league entered into a lockout that wasn't resolved for 149 days and will cut the 2011-12 season to 66 games.

Had he changed his mind at the last minute and decided to give one more go of it with the Lakers this year, he would have ended up experiencing a severe case of déjà vu.

You see, just less than a year ago, on Dec. 29, 2010, during his pregame media session before the Lakers beat the Hornets 103-88 in Andrew Bynum's first start of the season, Jackson was asked about the opposing franchise being purchased by the league as he stood in a narrow hallway in front of the visitor's locker room at New Orleans Arena.

Looking back and reading Jackson's response to the questions on Thursday was downright eerie after NBA commissioner David Stern intervened to veto a three-team trade that would have sent Chris Paul to the Lakers, Pau Gasol to the Rockets and Lamar Odom, Luis Scola, Kevin Martin and Goran Dragic to the Hornets.

Here's an excerpt of the story that ran on ESPNLosAngeles.com:

"Who's going to trade who to whom? Who's going to pull the button on trading player or when Chris [Paul] says he has to be traded? How's that going to go? I don't know. Somebody's going to have to make a very nonjudgmental decision on that part that's not going to irritate anybody else in this league ... I don't know how they're going to do that."

The Hornets basketball decisions and day-to-day operations will continue to be controlled by team president Hugh Weber and general manager Dell Demps, but Jackson was skeptical any move made by New Orleans would be viewed as the league helping out another franchise.

"That's what everybody is going to be afraid of: Who is going to be helping who out?" Jackson said.

Just by happenstance, I left a message with Jackson's agent, Todd Musburger, on Thursday morning to see if Phil felt like talking and catching up the Lakers' fan base as to what he's been doing with his life the last five months.

Jackson was on my mind because Gasol had mentioned how he has stayed in touch with his ex-coach on Wednesday.

Todd's son, Brian Musburger, called me back to politely decline the request on Phil's behalf, saying that Jackson would rather stay quiet for the time being.

And so, Jackson's premonition will have to speak for itself.

The whole incident reminded me of a quote Derek Fisher told me when I asked him to compare Jackson to an animal for a profile I did on Phil for NBA.com back in January 2009:

"A fox," says Derek Fisher, who has played for Jackson for seven of the nine seasons that Jackson's been in L.A.. "He's really sly. He doesn't make a lot of noise when he's around. He just kind of comes and does what he wants to do and needs to do and then he disappears back out into the woods. He's just chilling amongst the trees."

Jackson saw the mess that was coming and picked a perfect time to disappear back out into the woods.

Dave McMenamin covers the Lakers for ESPNLosAngeles.com. Follow him on Twitter.

Perhaps it's best to quote Chris Paul himself, via Twitter.

"WoW."

Indeed. In one of the most incredible developments I've ever seen in any sport, the NBA has blocked the trade sending Chris Paul from league-owned New Orleans to Los Angeles in exchange for Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom. In the process, they've potentially sent the Lakers into a state of chaos. They'll open training camp with two players who thought they were out the door and another in Andrew Bynum who must assume his day is soon coming, and reportedly no idea of what constitutes an acceptable trade for Paul and perhaps anyone else.

Reportedly, other owners pressured commissioner David Stern to squash the deal, something the league office denies. "It's not true that the owners killed the deal, the deal was never discussed at the Board of Governors meeting and the league office declined to make the trade for basketball reasons," NBA spokesman Mike Bass said.

And while you decide if you'd rather buy the bridge they're selling or the magic beans behind door number two, I'll say this: On a 1-10 scale of vagueness, "basketball reasons," already a mocking hashtag on Twitter, comes in at about 19. If the NBA is to regain any sense of credibility a much better explanation is required.

I started this evening with questions about a trade I thought was happening, so it seems reasonable to finish with questions about how it disappeared:

1. If Chris Paul can't be traded to the Lakers, where can he be traded?

2. Again, what exactly are the "basketball reasons" the league office say scuttled the trade? At some point, the NBA must demonstrate how blocking this particular transaction is in the best interests of either the Hornets or the league.

3. How can the Lakers proceed in an effort to try and improve their roster? Does this impact their ability to flip Odom and Bynum for Howard? Could any deal be constructed netting them CP3? Keep in mind, they just agreed to give up a four-time All Star and the reigning Sixth Man of the Year, two of the most skilled big men the NBA has to offer.

4. Taking the league at its word for a moment (don't worry, I'll get over the compulsion quickly), how on earth did the process get so far? Did the NBA just get the memo Hornets (theoretical) G.M. Dell Demps might move Paul? Shouldn't whomever is actually in charge of transactions with the New Orleans Hornets have put the kabosh on all of this before potentially ruining the relationships between the Lakers and two vital players they apparently have to keep, at least for the time being?

5. Assuming the league's explanation is bunk, if the owners/Stern didn't want this sort of thing to happen, they shouldn't have ratified the deal allowing this sort of thing to happen. Not actually a question. Apologies for breaking with formula.

6. As I noted earlier this evening and John Hollinger (Insider required) points out in great detail that should grab the attention of all Lakers fans, L.A. would have been taking an enormous risk executing this trade. It would leave them with a frontcourt of Bynum and... Bynum. No backup center, no power forward, no backup power forward, and even with the trade exceptions acquired in the swap with New Orleans, limited means of filling those positions. They'd perhaps be the rare team hoping to take on the contract of Hedo Turkoglu from Orlando in a Howard deal, because they needed a guy to fill the open slot at the 4.

They weren't a better team after the trade than before it. The potential was there, but it was just that.

Even if they did get Howard, should anything with their new Big 3 go wrong-- decline for Kobe Bryant, knee issues for Paul, just to name a couple-- the Lakers would not only be severely limited in their ways to improve the team, but also paying extraordinary amounts of money not to be successful.

Doesn't any of this matter? The idea this trade turned the Lakers into perma-juggernauts is absurd. A lot had to happen before L.A. would have been secure, and some -- Hollinger for one -- believe the league unwittingly saved the Lakers from making a horrible mistake.

7. What happens at when the Lakers open up to media tomorrow in El Segundo?

As if there wasn't enough to talk about with this team already?

When the league announced a tentative 66-game schedule, there was some speculation some teams simply wouldn't play each other at all this year. Those of you who can't live without those random matchups against lowly Eastern Conference teams can rest easy -- the Lakers will play every team in the league at least once. But because the schedule allows only 18 games against the Eastern Conference, sacrifices have to be made.

First, the Lakers play only three E.C. teams twice (more on that in a sec).

Home games: Chicago (Dec. 25), New York (Dec. 29), Cleveland (Jan. 13), Indiana (Jan. 22), Charlotte (Jan. 31), Atlanta (Feb. 14), Miami (Mar. 4), Boston (Mar. 11), New Jersey (April 3).

Road games: Miami (Jan. 19), Orlando (Jan. 20), Milwaukee (Jan. 28), Philadelphia (Feb. 6), Boston (Feb. 9), New York (Feb. 10), Toronto (Feb. 12), Detroit (Mar. 6), Washington (Mar. 7).

You'll notice the only home-and-home matchups this season include Boston, Miami and New York. Call me crazy, but I'm thinking this is no accident. Honestly, if the league had to stage a 10-game schedule, I suspect it would include these six games first, before the NBA's supercomputers figured out how to divvy up the last four. It's good for the game -- these are marquee matchups fans want to see -- but bad for the Lakers. With only 66 dates on the calendar, each game means that much more in the final standings. Clearly the Western Conference team drawing two dates against a set of lesser opponents has an advantage.

Other storylines we'll miss/other things we'll see:

(Read full post)

Normally, revealing the Lakers' preseason schedule rates somewhere with "Wet Paint at Local Gymnasium Now Dry" on the Big News Story Scale, but of course nothing about the (tentative) 2011-12 season is normal. Meaning the announcement of this year's truncated slate of warm up games-- a home and home against the Clippers on December 19 (@LAL) and 21 (@LAC), both at 7:30 pm PT-- actually provides a few talking points.

First, the Lakers benefit from not having to go anywhere to play. Even a short flight to Golden State or Sacramento would mean losing time better spent doing something else, namely practicing. Second, the Clippers are a real team with genuine playoff ambition, particularly if rumors about Caron Butler prove true. The red, white, and blue should be focused and ready to go, and won't be spending much time auditioning prospective talent. They have a basic rotation in place, as do the Lakers, and those are the guys who will play. All told, it improves the quality of the two dress rehearsals. Given how little time the Lakers have to prepare for Christmas day, this matters.

The short camp combined with a new coaching staff and any number of other open questions about the Lakers means we're likely to assign more meaning to the outcome of these games than they probably deserve, but no question they count for something more than your typical preseason contest.

And if nothing else, sticking Kobe Bryant and Blake Griffin together in a pair of games likely to have a regular season feel to them benefits fans who normally don't get much of a show for their preseason ticket dollar.