Lakers Rumors: Rasheed Wallace Will Reportedly Sign with Lakers
What it Means
To put it bluntly, the Lakers are getting an old big man to fill a need that isn't there at the moment. "At the moment" may be the crucial phrase here.
There was little to no talk of Wallace playing in the NBA again, let alone for the Lakers—a team that currently has plenty of issues, but none of which involve play in the paint.
Blakely reminds us that Wallace has not played a game since Game 7 of the 2010 NBA Finals, when he announced that Celtics he would retire after the game.
The report states that the talk of a Wallace return was due to a great showing at the Pro-Am tournament in North Carolina this summer, and a training protocol that has him looking incredibly fit.
The Lakers currently have only 14 players on the team, so adding Wallace will be a non-issue in terms of making a roster cut.
Other than Wallace being one of the most enigmatic and technical foul-prone players of his era, there is no way of knowing what this means.
There is little hope that Wallace can be the player he was when he left the game in 2010, and that is exactly what a source close to the proceedings says. Per Blakely's report.
His days as a starter in this league are gone. I think he knows that, and so do the Lakers. But think about it. Of the big men that are available, is there one that's really better? And if he's gotten himself in shape, adding him becomes a huge get for them.
This is a...
This no doubt makes the bench bigger, but I will hold judgement on whether this makes them better. Two years out of the league makes me a bit skittish on my expectations.
I am also very afraid of what this means in a future deal the Lakers may be looking to pull off. The addition of another big man with two great ones already on the roster makes me weary, especially considering how dreadful this front office's decisions have been this season.
If this is merely a means to bolster a soft bench, fine. Anything more would make this a deal that has far too much weight attached.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?