Re: LAKERS

[Douglas342@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/10/99 6:41:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, norine@sover.net
writes:

> Would someone please explain to me how the Lakers can make all these deals
>  and stay under the salary cap with the money they're paying Shaq?  Makes me
>  think of baseball and how teams are buying a championship.  Not that I
blame
>  them, I just don't see how they're doing it.
>  SNIP
 But this is painful.
>  
>  Dorine
>  
It sure is.  And I join in your question about the Laker cap.  The
rollercoaster continues at high speed.  Look.  We have three players (Walker,
Pierce, Mercer) who appear to be solid keepers.  We have DQ, who seems to be
good as a widebody 4, and Battie adds some (not much) scoring punch to the
same position.  Anderson is a competent (at least) point. No one on this list
has sold me on anyone else as of yet.  We lack power at 4 and 5, as we all
know.  Pitino said this isn't our year for playoffs.  Fine.  The consensus
choice on our list this year was 28 wins, still attainable by this team that
beats the good teams and loses to the weak ones.  Keep the New Big Three.  The
big need is a 5.  We can probably pick up a good enough 4 - Oakley has been
mentioned - for a year or so at low pay.  Soon we will shed the baggage of
Dana (who will be missed by many of us for many parts of his game), Minor,
Pervis and Dino.  Maybe two more years to clear all this baggage and free up
the cap room?  Meanwhile, we need to sign Mercer. Pierce and Walker are tied
up. Won't that leave us cap room for a solid 5?  Or maybe there will be one in
the draft?
   To quote Pitino:  "We're young, painfully young."
    With the new CBA, the name of the game has changed.  I think we're as much
in it as anyone. And, at the risk of offending Greg, I tip my hat to Jerry
West.  He's done a hell of a job.  About a year or two ago, I proposed trading
the entire Celtic team for him.  
   Random thoughts from Doug in 0-17 Clipperland.  (Well, still 0-16, but
they're down by 14 in the 4th)