ESPN

You didn't really think the deadline would pass without a poddy, did ya? You know us better than that. Among the talking points...





- The Lakers are officially different than at March 15, 11:59 am PT. The key new face arriving is, of course, point guard Ramon Sessions. We both think he was a nice pickup, and can really help this team. He's not an elite point guard, but he can get to the rim, run a quality pick-and-roll and move the ball well. I don't expect him to start for at least a couple of games, but eventually, he should help make life much easier for Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum.

- Of course, the day also resulted in a pair of longtime Lakers, Derek Fisher and Luke Walton, exiting L.A. Walton, human punchline/punching bag that he became for most Lakers fans, was a popular teammate and respected in the locker room (by, among others, Kobe). But to be perfectly honest, any on-court utility offered has long-since expired and his contract represented money deader than any presidents on the bills he pocketed. Moving Walton was a no-brainer if possible.

Fisher, however, still brought tangibles to the table, even with his production in decline. Dude's still got a knack for big shots, and it's fitting his final bucket as a Laker was a go-ahead score against New Orleans in OT. More important, as I wrote yesterday, his presence, character and leadership was a major component of the success this team's enjoyed since 2008. His absence will be felt -- not that the team can't move forward, but that's simply a fact -- especially as the team looks to make a deep playoff run.

But ultimately, BK and I think the Lakers made the right call. With Sessions on board and Blake backing him up, Fisher would become a resident of "DNP-CD County," which undercuts his powerful voice and could fuel sour feelings, professional that he may be. Mike Brown also would be placed in the horribly awkward position of having to bench an influential member of a locker room still perhaps not entirely in his corner. Both risked becoming "the bad guy," which isn't fair to either, and from a financial standpoint, the Lakers are allocating their resources much more efficiently. The move had to be made, even if from an sentimental standpoint, it wasn't pretty.

- I share my longstanding theory former NBA players Mamadou N'diaye and Boniface N'Dong were actually the same person.

- Gasol is among the more charitable fellows in the NBA, and among other organizations has been involved with UNICEF. Thursday night, he attended a benefit, and sang a, shall we say, weepy song to help inspire some giving.



On one hand, BK and I have spent a lot of time defending Pau against the "Gasoft" label we don't think is fair or accurate, and warbling this particular song does our battle no favors. I get the thematic fit. It's called "How to save a life." The very important message is being driven home. But he might as well been singing "The Rose" or something by Tori Amos. There must be a "tougher" sounding song that inspires giving. Although on the other hand, if you're actually secure enough to sing that in a crowd and Tweet out pics, knowing the snickers that could follow, by definition, how soft can you really be?

Either way, good on Pau for getting behind a good cause, and while I'd label him a better piano player than singer, he's not terrible. Better than me, that's for sure.

In light of the disturbing news out of the NFL that both the New Orleans Saints and Washington Redskins had "bounty" programs in place where money was used as an incentive for defensive players to hurt the opposing teams' offensive players, Los Angeles Lakers coach Mike Brown was asked if he ever offered money to his players based on their performance.

"I did when I was in Cleveland," Brown said before the Lakers played the Sacramento Kings on Friday. "I used to give, I think it was $1,000 a month and the NBA said we’re not allowed to do that or else we’ll get fined as a club, so we stopped doing it. Anderson Varejao used to win it every month and everybody didn’t like it. They would complain, ‘Well, he got the most minutes! Well, he’s always down by the basket so he could take the charges.’ Blah blah blah blah. He was the usual winner."

ESPN's Shelley Smith reported during the 2010 NBA Finals that the Lakers had a similar charges for cash program, although the payoff was far more nominal: $50 per charge.

According to the Elias Sports Bureau, Varejao drew 28 offensive fouls in 2009-10, the last season Brown coached Cleveland. If Varejao led the team in charges every month of the regular season, it would have netted him $6,000 in Brown's system, but just $1,400 in the Lakers' $50-per-charge setup.

Derek Fisher leads the Lakers in charges drawn this season with 21, followed by Steve Blake with 11, Pau Gasol with seven and Matt Barnes with five.

Dave McMenamin covers the Lakers for ESPNLosAngeles.com. Follow him on Twitter. ESPN Stats & Information's Alvin Anol contributed to this report.

There were some things to like during Friday's 97-92 win over the Cavs at Staples Center Friday night, and other things... not so much. Either way, following an 0-2 start, the Lakers have now found themselves on the right side of the scoreboard in nine of their last 11, pushing them to the top of the Pacific Division. Still, it's a little tough to measure just how good this Lakers team actually is.

We'll find out soon enough. Starting Saturday against the Clippers, the Lakers play six straight against playoff caliber opponents. They'll do it without Steve Blake, expected to miss 3-4 weeks in the wake of his rib injury, but with a red hot Kobe Bryant, who scored another 42 points on 15-of-31 from the floor, his third straight 40 point game and 110th over a 16 year NBA career.

One reason for hot streak: That bum wrist is getting a little less bum.

Maybe he should ding it up again? The results over his last seven games, including six Lakers wins, have been otherworldly. 37.4 points on 50 percent shooting, plus 5.7 rebounds and five assists. Perhaps it's best not to change a thing?

I kid. In the clip below, Kobe attributes the run to the quality of shots he's been getting since sitting down with Mike Brown following the Denver game on New Year's Day. Certainly Brown and his staff have learned to put Kobe in advantageous positions with consistency, a major improvement over last year. So there's that, plus a healthy dose of motivation brought by playing with the wrist and a totally palpable desire to send a message to anyone who believes (or more importantly who Kobe believes, believes) his time as an elite player has run its course.

My position hasn't changed. As a fan of basketball and athletic achievement, Kobe's play has been amazing and a ton of fun to watch. As someone paid to form an opinion on how it impacts the Lakers, I'm less enthused. Kobe has talked about his scoring as a weapon they can use as needed. Unfortunately, it's one they've fired a lot in the early going. At some point, the Lakers collectively need to find ways to lighten Bryant's load, or the odds of a happy outcome this season go down.

There's time to get it done, but this season in particular time is of the essence. Until they do, though, the fireworks likely continue. There's a reason people like fireworks.



More from Bryant below, on the absence of Blake, Andew Bynum learning to deal with double teams, and more. Video as well from Darius Morris, Bynum, and Brown.

(Read full post)

What should have been a blowout Friday night evolved into an actual game, and the failure to close out was pretty disappointing. Obviously, the bottom line is a record pushed to 9-4, but lapses such as these do provide pause. And if repeated against an opponent such as the Clippers (on the docket Saturday), they'll likely result in a 9-5 record, rather than 10-4. Still, we move forward, with six takeaways from the game:

1) For one game, the Lakers looked like a team drenched in point guard strength.

Ironically, this development took place as their best overall point guard, Steve Blake, watched in street clothes while starting his three- to four-week recovery period from a fractured rib. For a team lacking in both ball handlers and play-makers, this felt like a recipe for (at best) Kobe Bryant shouldering a heavier burden to manufacture buckets for himself and others or (at worst) an inconsistent offense bogging down even further.

But a funny thing happened on the way to Strugglesville. The tandem of Derek Fisher and Darius Morris, the former beaten up 24/7 as the Lakers' weakest link and the latter making just his second appearance this season, joined forces to provide some quality minutes. In particular, Fisher had himself one heckuva night. His first half rounded out with nary a shot attempt or point, but his passing created nine Lakers buckets. Fisher got off to a great start by creating the Lakers' first two scores with dishes inside to Andrew Bynum, then later threw a gorgeous left-handed baseball pass to Pau Gasol after drawing a double-team on a pick-and-roll. He also was particularly in sync with Matt Barnes' off-ball movement, setting him up with a couple of baskets while the small forward ran curls away from the action.

And in a moment I'm sure the veteran enjoyed, given his distaste for the "Fish can't hang with the kids because he's older than dirt" narrative, he stripped No. 1 overall pick Kyrie Irving on one possession with shocking ease, then converted the turnover into a layup for Gasol.

Fisher finished the night with 10 assists (against zero turnovers), the 15th 10-plus assist game of his career, the previous one coming Jan. 11, 2009.

(Read full post)

In any scenario, I want the Lakers to win. It's "good for business," as the saying goes. It's good for my soul, too. There's just no downside to a purple and gold W, and I doubt the Laker Nation would disagree. But if extra incentive were ever needed for this fan base to cheer on the Lakers, try this on for size: Friday's opponents, the Cleveland Cavaliers, are owned by Dan Gilbert.

Gilbert was among the owners who took umbrage at the original deal sending Chris Paul to the Lakers, even going so far as to send David Stern an email urging him to block it. Unless you take the Commish at his word about acting independent of outside pressure -- and I don't -- Gilbert by extension had a hand in preventing Paul from wearing a Laker uni. And if you didn't get the memo, Paul now plays for a local team trying to steal the Lakers' thunder.

So there's that.

For further insight on the Cavs, I called upon John Krolik, keeper of the True Hoop network's Cavs:The Blog. Below are his answers to five questions, plus additional thoughts sprinkled in from yours truly:

1) Land O' Lakers: At the risk of offering a backhanded compliment, the Cavs are 5-5, much better than I expected. Even acknowledging some wins over weak teams, are they moving in a good direction?

John Krolik: I've gone on record as saying that I was hoping the Cavs would be absolutely terrible this season while developing their young guys so that they could snag another high draft pick rather than get stuck in "we're in the hunt for the #8 seed!" purgatory. And I will say that the Cavs were off to a fairly nice start last season before the first time they hosted the Heat. But yes, they are moving in a good direction. They've gone from 29th to 13th in defensive efficiency, which is the biggest thing for me -- the frontcourt simply did not care about defense last season. This year, [Anderson] Varejao and [Tristan] Thompson have changed that, and even Antawn Jamison has looked decent on defense, which is a 2,000% improvement from last season.

The team looks like it's playing with a purpose this year, which is huge.

(AK's note: Lest we forget, the rudderless version managed to beat the Lakers in what may have been the worst loss of Phil Jackson's L.A. coaching career, much less last season. The Lakers are obviously more engaged in January 2012 than January 2011, but then again, so are the Cavs. In a shortened season of perpetually sloppy basketball, the "any team can beat any other team on any given night"cliche´ feels especially pertinent. The Lakers should win, but there are no guarantees.)

(Read full post)

With the lockout now ended, we can actually examine questions beyond, "When will we see basketball again?" One topic, of course, is how the Lakers' offense will run under new coach Mike Brown. Since October 2005, we've seen this Lakers core run the triangle under Phil Jackson. Really, that system represents the Lakers' look since October 1999, save a brief period under Rudy Tomjanovich.

It's safe to say the aesthetics under Brown will be different.

How different, you ask?

Well, that's difficult to answer with real certainty. Since July 1, when the lockout began, access to Brown has been limited. When he has been available, league rules have prohibited him from speaking publicly about current players by name. Thus, specific details have been in short supply for quite some time. But we have been offered hints, along with some templates, to stoke our imaginations.

During his introductory news conference, which took place before lips were zipped, Brown downplayed the shadow of the triangle. "A lot of people run bits and pieces of the triangle offense," he insisted. "It's just basketball. It's spacing. It's reads. Even Cleveland, we had some bits and pieces of it within our offense." For that matter, he predicted his offense "will have bits and pieces of it that will be incorporated and will be based on the skill set and the comfort level of our players that will determine how much of it will be part of our offense."

Having said that, Brown also added, "We're not gonna run the triangle offense."

So there you have it.

As for what Brown actually will run, a small nugget was introduced that same afternoon:

"A lot that I'm gonna take offensively will stem from the time I was with San Antonio. ... We had two big, skilled 7-footers in Tim Duncan and David Robinson. So we'll do something similar to what they did with a little sprinkle of the triangle offense and a little sprinkle of what I want to bring to the table, also. We'll kinda combine it. But offensively, I think you have to tailor your offense to your personnel. You can't take our offense from team to team to team."

On draft day, amid the Darius Morris/Andrew Goudelock hoopla, Brown expanded these details a bit, offering thoughts on the following:

The role of the point guard in what will presumably be a more traditional offense
“It will be an equal opportunity offense where the 1, the 2 or the 3 can bring the ball up. Because all the smalls are interchangeable. So it’s not going to be too much different, because in the past here they had multiple guys, even including Lamar [Odom], bring the ball up. But the one thing we like to emphasize, we like to emphasize attacking the clock. We want to get the ball from the backcourt to the frontcourt within the first four seconds or so, so that we can get to a second, a third and sometimes a fourth option without our backs being up against the shot clock. So we’d like to get the ball up the floor a little quicker than what we’ve done in the past.”

Whether Brown has an idea of how he wants to use Kobe Bryant
“Yes, I do. It fits into what I’m trying to do in our early offense. What I was saying is our early offense is going to be similar to what San Antonio did back when they had the two bigs in David and Tim. Again, there will be some bits and pieces of the triangle involved. But I think the triangle, it’s a motion offense for the most part, and a lot of people have bits and pieces of that within their offense. It won’t be any different for us, and we’ll make sure Kobe’s in his comfort zone, or his sweet spots out on the floor.”

(Read full post)

Assuming there's ever a 2012 season for Mike Brown to make his debut, it will by definition be compressed. Everything from the games played to the time for getting everyone on the same page will be served by way of a bullet train. Factor in how Brown had barely over a month to communicate with players before the July 1 lockout and the goal of cohesion becomes even more difficult.

For the time being, the process of meshing his new players to a championship level has been left entirely to Brown's imagination.

Thankfully, it's been in overdrive for quite some time.

Brown actually began picturing himself as the Lakers head coach shortly after July 2, 2010, the day Phil Jackson announced he was embarking on his "last stand." Brown, newly unemployed after getting fired by the Cleveland Cavaliers, knew he didn't want to remain out of coaching very long. And as he shared over a Thursday afternoon lunch at the Lakers' facility in El Segundo with a handful of media members, the Lakers were the team heaviest on his radar.

"I was intrigued with this job," noted Brown. "And you know, I'm not one to talk about [or] look at jobs that are already filled and so it was common knowledge that Phil was going to step down. Early on. Even if a job is filled, you may watch teams and say, 'I would do this, I would do that.'

"But this one in particular, because you knew Phil was going to walk away at the end of the year. I really watched it and studied it and you're excited about the team because of the different players and so on and so forth... I knew I wanted to coach this year and if I had an opportunity, which I felt that I would have during the year, that I was going to take what I felt was the best opportunity."

How vivid was this fantasy of succeeding The Zen Master? The devil may be in the semantics. When I asked if he was "studying" the Lakers from a distance, Brown balked, but conceded he was "watching them closer than any other team." He also didn't agree with my framing of the situation as "coaching the Lakers in his mind," but he nonetheless often pondered how he would have handled certain on-court situations during the failed three-peat bid. If even Brown hadn't pictured himself giving halftime talks inside the Lakers locker room, visions of holding a white board on the Staples Center bench don't feel like a stretch.

Of course, it's also indicative of a coach's mind, which typically can't be turned off. If fans with no chance whatsoever of coaching the Lakers play armchair coach 82+ games each year, can any less be expected from a man with a reasonable shot?

(Read full post)

After Mike Brown's press conference, Lakers General Manager Mitch Kupchak took some questions from the media. Brian and I have often joked how Mitch would be a great C.I.A. operative, in that the dude is an expert in revealing zero information through his speech. Thus, the lack of unique specifics -- much less bombshells -- dropped should come as a surprise to nobody. Still, there were a few unexpected elements.

First, the obvious annoyance exhibited at having to validate this hire. Kupchak remained even keel as always, but by his mellow standards, he was a little testy. The guy clearly took exception with the media's portrayal of how (and perhaps why) Brown entered the fold. Also, Kupchak didn't shoot down the possibility of Kobe Bryant and Brown not seeing eye-to-eye on everything, and maybe not always getting along. On it's face, this isn't particularly revelatory, since coaches and players with fantastic relationships don't always walk in lockstep. But between how much ultimately does ride on Kobe buying what Brown's selling, Brown's need to win fans over and 24's difficult reputation (always a touchy subject), I imagine most General Managers would have downplayed any possibility of butting heads. Kupchak instead acknowledged the possibility, but downplayed any potential fallout, the caveat being winning cures all.

On whether he was surprised by the negative reaction to Brown's hiring
"Not that I don't respect the opinions of the media, but a lot of times, the media is driven by other variables. For example, my office, in the morning when I come in after a series ends, my light's on on my phone and I've got a bunch of mail on my desk, and it's all negative. People that are positive don't take the time to write a letter saying how happy they are, or call and leave a message on the phone to say how happy they are. So negative 'sells,' to some degree. It's also hard to follow in the footsteps of somebody like Phil Jackson. I know that myself. Our season did not end on a positive note. We lost a Hall of Fame coach and we bring in a coach that people on the west aren't as familiar with as people on the east are, so there's gonna be some criticism. So I'm never really completely surprised."

On the perception of Brown being hired quickly
"It's not like Phil Jackson decided to leave four weeks ago and all of a sudden, we had to hire a coach. From time to time during the season, I met with ownership and talked about what kind of a coach we looked to replace Phil [Jackson] with. Although at the very end we always hoped that we won another championship and we could talk him back into returning. It was clear to me that he was not returning. So you could say the process began a year ago. If you look at it that way, it wasn't a very short process at all.

"And the other thing that I mentioned is we were behind a little bit. Teams that the playoffs ended three weeks before ours, they had begun the process. We knew who we wanted to interview. We had great interest. We knew we'd have no problem finding a good coach, and when we interviewed the candidates, we were most comfortable with Mike."

(Read full post)

The Southland is still buzzing after the news that Mike Brown will succeed Phil Jackson as coach of the Los Angeles Lakers. A surprising hire, to say the least, and also one relatively unfamiliar with Lakers fans, since Brown has only been a head coach in the Eastern Conference. Obviously, there are questions, and we're trying to provide as many answers as possible.

PODCAST
Andy and Brian discuss new Lakers coach Mike Brown with ESPN.com's Brian Windhorst. Windhorst covered the Cavaliers for the Cleveland Plain Dealer while Brown was the coach. Podcast

Earlier, we got some insight from John Krolik, host of "Cavs The Blog (True Hoop network). After, we talked to ESPN.com's Brian Windhorst, who covers the Miami Heat for the Heat Index. Before taking his talents to South Beach, Windhorst spent several seasons covering the Cavaliers for The Cleveland Plain Dealer. During that time, he got to know Brown well as both a coach and a person.

Windhorst was very candid pointing out Brown's strengths and weaknesses -- no punches were pulled about the necessary likelihood of hiring an offensive coordinator -- but made it abundantly clear how much he respects the Lakers' new coach. Here are some excerpts of our conversation with Windhorst, which can be heard in its entirety by clicking on the module to the right.

Windhorst, on the Lakers hiring Mike Brown
"I'm kind of surprised by it, because I don't know how good the fit is for Mike. I'm not thinking about it from the Lakers' perspective. I'm more thinking about it from Mike's perspective, because he's a guy that I know. I always thought the job he was sort of targeting was the Warriors job. The Lakers are a team that's a veteran team that's trying to fight decline, that's probably set in its ways. What Mike did so effectively and well in Cleveland was he took a team that needed to be molded and kind of young and turned them into a championship contender by sort of breaking them down and building them back up.

"He's sort of a process coach. The Lakers are looking for someone to keep it going. I don't know if they're looking for someone to retool everything... He's taken the reins of a 747, so to speak, that's mid-flight. It's gonna be a real challenge for him. I don't really know how good that's all gonna go.

"What I will say is I'm not surprised at all that he probably impressed the Buss family during the interview process, because he is a very impressive guy to talk to. If you just pay attention to his interviews that he did in Cleveland, you won't think that. You'll sort of think that he's a little bit goofy and sometimes looks aloof. That is not Mike Brown. Mike Brown is one of the most prepared and intelligent basketball minds I've ever been around. His character is literally impeachable."

(Read full post)

As ESPNLA.com's Dave McMenamin and ESPN.com's Marc Stein report, the Lakers are neck deep in talks to hire former Cleveland coach Mike Brown to succeed Phil Jackson as head coach.

My thoughts off the news are here, but while I have my opinion on Brown and how he'd fit in L.A., it's admittedly one without the depth of someone who followed Brown and the Cavs on a nightly basis through his tenure there. Someone like John Krolik, frequent contributor to ESPN.com and NBC's ProBasketballTalk.com, and the author of Cavs: the blog, TrueHoop's outpost in Cleveland.

He was kind enough to answer our questions about Brown, adding insight about the quality of Brown's offensive schemes, why his teams posted solid defensive numbers, and whether he'd mesh well with L.A.'s personnel, and with Kobe particularly.

Good stuff, providing a fuller picture of the pros and cons surrounding Brown as the next man in charge.

1. Brown has been roundly criticized for his lack of creativity offensively in Cleveland. How much of that was about him, how much was about personnel?

Krolik: It was almost entirely about the latter. The Cavaliers were very good offensively in Brown's last two seasons -- in fact, they had a better offensive efficiency mark than the Lakers did in '09-'10, and finished one tenth of a point per 100 possessions in '08-'09.

Brown developed a reputation as a bad offensive coach when his starting backcourt was Eric Snow and Larry Hughes. Show me a coach who can run a good offense with that backcourt, and I'll show you a miracle worker.

In later seasons, Brown was criticized for having his offense be too LeBron-centric, but if LeBron wasn't being featured in every possession offensively in some way, that would have been idiotic. What was he supposed to do, rely on Mo Williams, Anderson Varejao, or an ancient Shaquille O'Neal as his primary playmakers? As we saw this season, there was not a lot of offensive talent on that roster, and the loss of Shaq, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, and Delonte West didn't make a ton of difference, either.

Also, in a lot of ways Brown used Lebron more efficiently than Erik Spoelstra has in Miami, despite Spo having more offensive talent around James. Under Brown, LeBron got more assisted opportunities at the rim, and more of his passes led to dunks, layups, and three-point shots as opposed to mid-range jumpers.

Also, the Cleveland offense was more complex than most give it credit -- there were back-screen threes on corner dives, scissor-cuts out of the high post, post sets that involved LeBron drawing a double and passing back out to force rotation, and an unstoppable decoy pick-and-roll play I nicknamed "The Kracken." So Brown's offense wasn't actually simple, it was just built completely around LeBron, and the reasons should be obvious. The bottom line is Brown developed a bad offensive reputation when there was no shooting or playmaking around LeBron in his first few seasons as a head coach, and it stuck because reputations tend to stick. Show me the players who have become significantly better offensively after leaving a Mike Brown team. Here, I made a list. (Scroll down a bit.)

If Brown was so bad at using the tools he had, why didn't any of those tools play better after escaping from his offense?

2. What made Brown so successful as a defensive coach in Cleveland? Could it be replicated in L.A.?

Krolik: First off, the Cavs were overrated defensively in 09-10. They were good defensively, but not great. What made him successful overall was getting LeBron to buy in and turn himself from a non-factor defensively to one of the best defenders in the league, having West to guard the other team's best scorer for most of the game, and using Varejao's mobility to stop pick-and-roll sets out at the perimeter, allowing Ilgauskas to stay under the basket, block shots, and rebound instead of having to, you know, move.

(Read full post)

After four strong wins to start their seven-game trip, a setback against a talented and increasingly desperate Orlando Magic team Sunday afternoon was fairly easy to swallow.

Losing by 20 the next evening in Charlotte, the Lakers' fourth game in five days and sixth in a long trip, with a flu-ridden Kobe Bryant in a place they (for reasons scientists will spend the next three decades trying to determine) historically struggle was undeniably ugly, but at least able to be explained away. This despite a 122-character, fully tweetable postgame media meeting in which Phil Jackson said he was "embarrassed" by the team's performance.

But in a season already marred with more losses against sub-.500 teams than in all of 2009-10, with only two wins in eight tries against the NBA's top five squads, nothing papers over Wednesday's 104-99 loss to a Cavaliers squad that entering the game had dropped 37 of its previous 39 games, including a 55-point loss to the Lakers at Staples Center. Even the most purple and gold of Pollyannas probably were throwing shoes through their flatscreens.

Forget worst loss of the season. Tonight's result lands squarely in the conversation for worst loss of the past decade.

Coincidentally, it came on a day when Jerry Buss, showing in a rare public appearance why he's the most successful owner in professional sports, stuck up for his team and its potential despite the leg-weariness accompanying three straight trips to the NBA Finals. "I think right about now everybody senses that we have to get busy," he said during 710 ESPN's Lunch with a Legend. "This is going to be our time. The pride begins to set in, not the fatigue. The fatigue begins to float away, and now they say, 'Wait a minute. This is our championship; you're going to have to take it away from us before you can call yourselves champions.'"

Perhaps Buss should have been more specific, since pride apparently doesn't kick in until after the All-Star break, a five-day intermission the Lakers seemingly thought too short. "I think they took the break before the game started," Jackson told reporters afterward.

(Read full post)

Honestly? Nothing.

As far as this game goes, breaking down the matchups is a laughably pointless exercise. The Cavs have won twice since November 27, and just barely avoided the longest losing streak in professional sports history. Their best players are either Antawn Jamison (a great guy, but past his prime and a defensive sieve) or Mo Williams (my vote for the most egregious All-Star since Jamal Magloire). From there, it's a bunch of unremarkable role players and somebody named "Samardo."

Plus, the Lakers beat them by a double freakin' nickel in January.

Given these circumstances, the only thing worth discussing would be a Laker loss. Is this scenario the equivalent of the earth spinning backwards? Without question. But considering the uneasiness swirling in the wake of double digit losses in Orlando and Charlotte, I guarantee the thought has crossed the mind of Joe P. Lakerfan. (The "P" stands for "pessimistic.") Thus, I'll play along and lay out of a few things to watch for should the logically impossible happen.

Trade chatter in overdrive
This recurring talking point died after two wins in Boston and New York, but as Tuesday's chat transcript demonstrates, all it takes is two bad losses for a purple and gold world to turn 180 degrees. A loss to Cleveland, however, will result in nothing short of Armageddon. It will be every man for themselves. Women and children won't be spared, much less the Laker roster.

Forget the typical Bynum for Carmelo/Ron Artest for Jax or Gerald Wallace/Luke Walton for any breathing player and/or a set of steak knives cries. Change will be demanded, along with heads rolling. Everybody would be deemed expendable save perhaps Kobe Bryant -- although I wouldn't bet my life a handful of fans wouldn't suggest blowing everything up and starting over young. ESPN's Trade Machine will go crazy like WOPR at the end of War Games.

For a team that's already expressed disdain for a hysterical rumor mill, even flirting with a loss would be a dangerous game. As War Games' militaristic computer said about thermonuclear war, the only winning move is not to play.

(Read full post)

"None. You forget who you're talking to."

That was Kobe Bryant's response Tuesday night when I asked whether at any point during the game he felt a little compassion for guys on the other bench, given the severity of the beatdown the Lakers laid on them. The Cavs scored only 57 points, and the 55-point margin of victory was the third-largest in Lakers history and their lowest point total surrendered since the advent of the shot clock more than a half century ago. Any empathy for Byron Scott? Yes, from the more macro perspective of watching a close friend suffer through what is an eight-win season unlikely to get better any time soon. But the players? No love from Kobe.
Shannon Brown was similarly unsympathetic, noting that none of the Cavs would have been if the tables were turned, particularly if given a chance to humiliate the Lakers. Nor would the guys in the locker room want it. (I suspect the Cavs don't, either.) Andrew Bynum shed no tears for the wine and gold, despite their extensive injury issues. "No, not really. The same situation with people being out can happen to any team, so we have to go out and handle our business the same way," he said.

From a player's perspective, I get it. As Bryant said, "You beat them by as many points as you can beat 'em." That's the object. No need to sweep the leg, but a good, clean beatdown is totally appropriate. But as an observer? I absolutely felt bad for the Cavs Tuesday night, an undermanned squad getting embarrassed in a very public setting. It reminded me of a time in high school I was forced to sit across the room at a friend's house while he was completely eviscerated by his dad. I couldn't leave the room (in part because my function there was to make sure my buddy wasn't killed), and needless to say, it was uncomfortable.

It's not as if the Cavs are the Celtics, right? LeBron James, the source of most/all anti-Cavaliers sentiment in years past, has moved on in famously arrogant fashion, turning the people of Cleveland and their basketball team into very sympathetic figures in the process. None of the other players on the roster has any history rubbing L.A. the wrong way. (What Lakers booster sat at home preening because Samardo Samuels was 1-for-12?)

Plus, the Cavs have a former Lakers great on the sideline.

So I'm curious: As a fan, did you feel sympathy for the Cavs?

Not since the lake burned (or Earnest Byner fumbled, or LeBron decided to dabble in television programming, or other things I'm probably forgetting) has Cleveland been eviscerated like they were Tuesday night. The Lakers set a team record in the post-shot clock era for fewest points allowed, notching the third-most lopsided victory in team history, beating the Cavs (or dudes in Cavs jerseys, at least) 112-57.

To put this in perspective, we're talking about over 4,930 games, and only twice have the Lakers won by a bigger margin, the record being a 162-99 win over Golden State in March of 1972. It was, plain and simple, a beat down of fairly epic proportions, fueled by a defense holding the Cavs to 30 percent shooting (29.9 to be exact).

No surprise, a focused, 48-minute performance on that end of the floor was the main point of conversation after the game. While trying to show some respect for their opponent, the Lakers were happy with their work, but clearly understood they did it against a bad team made worse by multiple key injuries. Great night, move along. That was the theme.

See Phil Jackson's postgame comments here, and click below the jump for more from Andrew Bynum, Lamar Odom, and Shannon Brown. Additional coverage of Tuesday's rout can be found here with The McTen, the postgame wrap, and the Lakers Live! replay.

(Read full post)

We all knew it would be an uphill climb for the Cavaliers, losers in 20 of their previous 21 games, Tuesday at Staples. They've been rocked by injuries, and their roster of available players is anonymous enough to make even last year's New Jersey Nets cringe. (Before the game, Phil Jackson said he was looking forward watching the Cavs, because it would give him a chance to see a bunch of players he's never heard of. Clearly Samardo Samuels hasn't landed on P.J.'s radar, yet.)

But still, you say to yourself, undermanned as they might be the Cavs can't be that bad. They fly in a charter jet and have NBA uniforms and get fresh headbands every night, just like every other NBA team. Even the best of teams put on their shorts one leg at a time, right (except these guys, when they play ball)? Of course the Cavs have a chance! This is why they play the game!

Or not.

Since the advent of the shot clock (lest you think it recent, it's been around since the '54-'55 season), the fewest points allowed by the Lakers was 66. Tonight, they flat dusted that mark. Cleveland scored 12 points in the quarter, then 10 in the second. Coming out of the break, they EXPLODED for 16, and managed to repeat the feat in the fourth. Was it great defense? Incompetent offense? Something in the water?

I will say I witnessed quite simply the worst play I've ever seen at the NBA level, when Ryan Hollins, after blocking Kobe Bryant underneath led the Cavs up court, flanked by teammates on each side. He proceeded to more or less hand the ball to Pau Gasol, stationed about three-quarters of the way up to half court. Gasol flipped it to Kobe, who popped the ball off the backboard to Andrew Bynum for a dunk.

Effectively, Hollins turned a five-on-two break into a three-on-oh the other way as James Naismith flopped like a landed trout in his grave.

When that happened, I wanted to walk over to the bench, give Byron Scott an encouraging slap on the back, and to keep his chin up. When Shannon Brown buried a three from half court to end the quarter, I wanted to upgrade it to a sympathetic hug.

Hide the women and children.

Here's how it broke down...

Three Up:

1. Taking care of business. The Lakers will play in Golden State Wednesday night, then again Friday and Sunday against the Nets and Clippers, respectively. Weak opponents, yes, but it's still a lot of basketball over six days. It was imperative thy not screw around with the worst team in the NBA, and they didn't. Four minutes in, the Lakers were already up by 11. They stretched it to 15 at the end of one, and didn't let up in the second, which hasn't exactly been a habit for this bunch. By halftime, they were up by 32.

This, it should be noted, with almost no work in the scoring department from Kobe Bryant, who took a grand total of two shots before the break.

2. Defense. The Cavs don't have good players. Those good players, even by their standards, still missed a lot of looks, but I don't care what's happening, holding a team to 57 points and 29.9 shooting has to mean they're doing something right. Perhaps the most impressive thing about the defense: only seven offensive rebounds allowed in the first half (off 28 misses), despite a huge lead (when players frequently lose focus) against a Cavs team that's actually pretty good on the offensive boards. Nor did the Lakers turn the ball over -- only six in the first half, and 12 overall (five coming in the fourth, when the game was, to say the least, decided). If they didn't do Cleveland's work for them, it seemed nearly impossible for the Cavs to score enough to keep up.

The Lakers didn't, and the Cavs- and this could be considered more than a mild understatement- didn't.

3. Ron Artest. I realize it's against a bad team playing horribly, but Artest continued his turnaround tonight, with 15 points on six-of-11 shooting and three-of-five from downtown, plus six dimes, five boards, and a steal (though he made some other good defensive plays). He needs positivity, in any form.

Three Down:

1. Phil Jackson. Why were Lamar Odom and Gasol in the game six minutes into the fourth quarter? Worried the lead might shrink to 45?

2/3. Punt. 112-57, people. Let's not split hairs.

More to come.