With the Celtics up six with just over 90 seconds to play, Kevin Garnett pretty much sealed the game with this follow-up dunk. Both teams were having trouble scoring, and if the Lakers had secured the rebound, they still would have been very much in the game.
Category: NBA (Page 457 of 595)
Everyone knows that Ron Artest is an odd guy. He marches to the beat of a different drummer. He’s a few crackers short of a picnic. I could go on.
His agent, Mark Stevens, told the Sacramento Bee that his client is leaning towards not opting out of the final year of his contract, which would pay him $8.5 million. (Note: A number of news organizations have been saying that his salary next season will be $7.4 M, but I go by Hoopshype.com, and they show $8.5 M. He made $7.8 M last season, and these contracts usually don’t decrease over time.)
“If he opts out, it’s obvious we’re looking at a midlevel exception deal (approximately $6 million per season),” Mark Stevens said. “Ron fully understands that if he opts out, he runs the risk of Sacramento saying, OK, opt out, you can leave, and we won’t get nothing for you, or we can do a sign and trade.
“Or Ron runs the risk of knowing he’s open to the free market and he might get midlevel exception. All the cards are definitely on the table.”
First of all, I’d be extremely leery of leaving my business interests in the hands of a guy who says things like “and we won’t get nothing for you.” You’d think that avoiding double negatives would be a prerequisite to negotiating multi-million dollar contracts, but apparently, you’d be wrong.
Anyway, with all of Artest’s baggage, it’s understandable that his camp believes that a mid-level deal is the best he could do in the free market. Assuming we see the same salary increase as we did last summer, a mid-level deal would start at around $5.6 million per season. So, by opting out, Artest could be giving up $2.8 million next season.
However, there is always the chance that the Kings could work out a sign-and-trade, which would allow Artest to make something closer to his market value ($10-$12 M per season). Artest’s value is a bit depressed due to all of the baggage he brings with him, but he has been a good citizen since arriving in the Kings and the league has taken notice.
Regardless, if he were to opt-out, Artest would have the opportunity to join a contender willing to commit to a five-year mid-level deal. (Remember, Artest is only 28, so he should be effective for the remainder of his contract). Wouldn’t the Cavs like to add him? Even though he plays the same position as LeBron, both players are versatile, so they could play together on the wing. Plus, LeBron has the star power to keep Artest’s wackiness in check. Or how about the Lakers, who have a huge hole at small forward? It’s conceivable that they plan to slide Lamar Odom to the three once Andrew Bynum comes back, but if they had a chance to add Artest, it would allow the Lakers to let Odom go after his contract expires next season. The Spurs are another team that desperately needs some new blood, though they have been leery in the past of ruining their vaunted chemistry. Still, I don’t think Artest would be much of a distraction with Tim Duncan around.
Wouldn’t Artest rather play for one of these teams? The Kings probably aren’t going to re-sign him, so isn’t he just delaying the inevitable for a year? That, coupled with the security that a long-term contract would bring, makes his decision not to opt out a strange one. If Artest were to have a career-ending injury in the final year of his contract, he’d essentially lose the $20 million he could have locked up had he signed a long-term deal at the mid-level.
But hey, I’m just a sports blogger, not no sports agent.
Almost a month ago, I posted my thoughts on the Lakers’ small forward situation. Last night, the problem reared its ugly head again.
In that post, I wrote the following:
I saw first-hand how [Vladimir] Radmanovic can shoot. He hit five or six straight threes in a playoff game when he was with the Clippers. But he is just lost defensively, and he doesn’t seem to be getting any better on that end of the court.
Radmanovic was 2-5 on the night, scoring five points and committing five fouls. He couldn’t keep up with Paul Pierce, especially at the beginning of the third quarter, when he allowed Pierce to score eight straight points (including an inexplicable four-point play), effectively squandering the Lakers’ five-point halftime lead.
The truth is that Radmanovic is in way over his head. He has no business starting in a NBA Finals or guarding Paul Pierce for any extended period of time. But his play is just a symptom of a bigger problem for the Lakers. Who can they trust to play alongside Derek Fisher, Kobe Bryant, Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol?
They were outrebounded by 13 last night, so they could go big and bring in Ronny Turiaf, sliding Odom to small forward. But then you have three guys who can’t shoot from the perimeter (Gasol, Odom and Turiaf), which will effectively clog the lane and hinder Kobe’s penetration. Lately, they’ve been going with Kobe at the three and Sasha Vujacic at off guard, but he was pretty bad last night (2-7 from the field, 1-3 from long range), and if he’s not knocking down jumpers, there’s no reason to have him on the court.
It was pretty obvious that the Celtics’ bench looked a lot more comfortable last night. Playing at home helps, but I think it has to do more with the relative seasoning; James Posey has already won a ring with the Heat, while P.J. Brown and Sam Cassell are a combined 97 years old. As for the Lakers, Jordan Farmar and Luke Walton seem to have lost a ton of confidence (or Phil Jackson has lost confidence in them). The duo played a combined 21 minutes last night and took a total of three shots.
There has been a lot of talk about how Kobe is able to singlehandedly lift his team out of an offensive slump, but it didn’t happen last night. He was 9-26 on the night, and was 1-5 (for four points) in the fourth quarter. Boston did a nice job of throwing help at him all night, forcing him to pass or to take tough, contested shots. And when he did find a teammate for an open jumper, they didn’t make the Celtics pay.
As regular readers know, Bill Simmons is a big Celtics fan and his recap has a couple of great bits.
Thursday night, the guys sitting next to me showed up halfway through the second quarter, spent the rest of the quarter taking pictures and saying things like, “Dude, check out Kobe,” disappeared at halftime and re-emerged during the third quarter with bags from the Celtics gift shop. From there, they proceeded to put on brand-new Celtics jerseys — one had Garnett, the other had Pierce — only they reacted happily every time Kobe did something. Thanks for coming, guys. It’s also worth mentioning that some soulless Boston fan sold his two courtsides right next to the Boston bench to two obnoxious L.A. fans who wore yellow Lakers jerseys and were hopefully beaten up after the game. I have stopped trying to figure out professional sports in the 21st century, I give up.
Shortly after Sam got pulled, there was a timeout and everyone was standing. I was watching the huddle and realized out of the corner of my eye that my Dad was inexplicably holding a small wad of bills in his hands and shuffling through them. There were a couple of 20s, a 10 and some ones. It’s not like he had $700 on him. He couldn’t have been counting them. I don’t know what was going on. When I asked him why he was shuffling through his cash, he simply shrugged and said, “I don’t know.” By the way, I am bringing defibrillator paddles to Game 2.
Much of the column is dedicated to Paul Pierce’s injury and “miraculous” recovery. It’s a pretty good description of what it was like to be a Celtics fan in the New Garden last night.
As long as there have been barstools, there have been men on those barstools arguing about sports. In this week’s Barstool Debate, Anthony Stalter and John Paulsen ask the question – which is the more storied franchise, the Lakers or the Celtics?
John: Those that know me know that I am no Laker lover, but it is my premise that the Los Angeles Lakers are the most successful franchise in the NBA. Counting its stint in Minneapolis, the franchise has 14 championships and 29 Finals appearances in 60 seasons. That’s an amazing stat – the Lakers have gone to Finals 48% of the time.
Anthony: Hold on a second, sports fan – what do you mean the Lakers are the most successful franchise in the NBA? By my count (and when I say that, I mean by Wikipedia’s count), the Celtics have hoisted 16 NBA Championships, which gives them two more than the Lakers’ 14. Plus, Boston won 11 titles in 13 years from 1957 to 1969, which is an incredible stat. An even better stat that relates more specifically to this debate is that the Celtics have absolutely owned the Lakers in head-to-head matchups, winning eight of the 10 times they faced L.A. in the NBA Finals.
John: True, true, the Celtics have owned the Lakers in their head-to-head meetings, but seven of those wins over the Lakers came in the ‘50s and early ‘60s when the league had a grand total of nine teams. That’s right, the Celtics typically just had to win one (sometimes two) playoff series and they were in the Finals. Then they were fortunate to have the league’s best player (Bill Russell), who towered over everyone else on the court. It’s not the Lakers fault that they happened to be the second-best team during Russell’s reign. Had the Celtics been able to get to the Finals during George Mikan’s run in Minneapolis, the series record would be a whole lot closer. Besides, what has Boston done lately? They haven’t won a title since 1986 and the Lakers have won five championships since the Celtics won their last. Plus, L.A. has won its last two Finals meetings with Boston. I’d say that the mantle of “success” is on the Lakers’ side.
Anthony: True, the Celtics haven’t done much lately. But look at this list of past greats the organization has turned out: Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, Dave Cowens, Paul Pierce, Sam Jones, Jo Jo White, Tommy Heinsohn, Tiny Archibald and of course, the original “Big Three” – Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish. You can’t overlook how good the organization was for decades. Plus, can any area trump the Garden? Nowadays, the Lakers get just as much attention for what celebrity is courtside as they do for their play on the court. The Celtics organization and fan base has always been about basketball and not Hollywood!
John: Have you seen all the celebs sitting courtside in Boston these days? Sure, L.A. is more star-studded, but the Celtics can no longer talk about their blue-collar work ethic with the new arena and ticket prices the way they are. But since we’re talking about the most successful franchise, let me list a few Laker greats: Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, James Worthy, Elgin Baylor, Byron Scott, George Mikan, Jamaal Wilkes, Norm Nixon, and let’s not forget the “Big Two” – Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal – who won just as many titles together as Boston’s original “Big Three.” While it’s true that the Celtics have the head-to-head edge and two more titles, if it weren’t for one player – Bill Russell – the head-to-head numbers would be much different. The Lakers have won through so many different teams and eras (and have won lately, during the salary cap era) that they have to be considered the most successful NBA franchise of all-time. Let me ask you this – if the Lakers prevail this year, will you change your tune? That would make the total titles 16 to 15 (in favor of the C’s) but the Lakers would have won six titles since the Celtics’ won their last.
Anthony: What happened to you, JP? You’re such a Lakers lover now… Sure, I’ll change my tune if L.A. wins this year. That would still only give them three out of 11 head to head victories against the Celtics in the Finals, but your point about the Lakers being incredibly successful in the past decade would be even more validated.
John: Laker lover – ha! I just call them like I see them. The main advantage the C’s have is in the head-to-head matchup, and that’s because nobody could cover Bill Russell for a decade. You could make a strong argument for either franchise, but I think the Lakers have to get the nod due to their consistent success.
FOLLOW US!
CATEGORIES
© 2026 The Scores Report – The National Sports Blog
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑