Truth be told, the Lakers haven't exhibited much consistency to allay whatever concern there may be. As I've written before, they struggle to force turnovers, which is a direct result of a lack of defensive intensity.
There are a couple of different ways to fix that, and some have suggested a roster shakeup. Given the status of the Lakers roster, however, what they'd have to give up would far outweigh anything they could gain.
I've read about rumors involving a possible trade for Grizzlies guard O.J. Mayo. In that scenario, the Lakers would be giving up Shannon Brown.
Given the intricacies of the triangle offense, can anyone really say that they would rather have Mayo?
I didn't think so.
I know moving Brown could be attractive to the Lakers. If he does not exercise his option to stay with the team next season, L.A. could lose him and get nothing in return.
However, Lakers general manager Mitch Kupchak should be pouring his energies into moving Luke Walton's contract to enable the club to retain Brown long-term.
Walton is scheduled to make $5.68 million and $6.1 million the next two seasons. Brown's option is for $2.4 million. Once again, I ask: Who would you rather have?
Walton is a favorite of Jackson's, but is it really worth sacrificing Brown's multi-dimensional skill set for Walton's nondescript offense and semi-solid defense?
There was also the report last week that forward Ron Artest would be glad to leave Los Angeles. Artest later denied that report, but while his play hasn't been inspiring, it isn't the problem. He is probably one individual the Lakers could afford to part ways with, as Lamar Odom could easily start in his place and no one would notice.
Another scenario involved center And...
Article Source: Bleacher Report - Los Angeles Lakers
