Antawn Jamison Reportedly Signs Deal with Los Angeles Lakers
The Los Angeles Lakers have begun their quest to improve the bench.
After acquiring Steve Nash to solidify their starting lineup, the Lakers' next logical move was to fix the bench, which was one of the worst last season.
Lakers have agreed to a one-year deal paying the minimum with free agent forward Antawn Jamison, a source tells Yahoo! Sports.— Marc J. Spears (@SpearsNBAYahoo) July 18, 2012
Let's take a closer look at this newest development.
What It Means
With all due respect to Josh McRoberts and Troy Murphy (not really), it means the Lakers finally have a big man who can come off the bench and provide some offense.
Good move by the Lakers?
The 36-year-old Jamison isn't going to set the stat sheet on fire anymore, but he has proved throughout his 14-year career that he can consistently put the ball in the hoop.
Even as he was forced to be the focus of bad Washington and, more recently, bad Cleveland teams—and saw his field-goal percentage drop as a result—Jamison still scored at a solid rate. Last year, in what was one of his more unproductive seasons, the former Tar Heel still dropped 17.2 points per game.
Take some pressure off him, put him in the second unit and this is a player who can still average double-digit scoring in fewer minutes.
The Lakers will have to pair Jamison, who isn't much more than offense and rebounding at this point in his career, with a second-unit frontcourt mate who can provide defense and energy.
O'Neal, who has been in the league for 16 long years, has shown he can still provide a defensive presence under the hoop. He is coming off a 1.7-blocks-per-game season with the Celtics.
On the other hand, Hill is much younger, but he proved to be incredibly productive on defense, on the glass and in the energy department with the Lakers in limited minutes last year.
This isn't a sexy move, but for the first time in a while, the L.A. bench is starting to look up.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?