Jodie Meeks is one of the most baffling players on the Los Angeles Lakers roster, which is really saying something.
Under Mike Brown, the kid couldn't buy some game time, but he seemed to do much better with Mike D'Antoni, which isn't surprising since Meeks was brought onto the Lakers for his shooting.
This year, the Lakers are going to have to trim the fat and make some changes, which could involve cutting the guard. The $1.55 million contract he's due isn't large by NBA standards, but it's something that could keep him on the cash strapped team.
In the regular season, Streaky Meeks played in 78 games and averaged 7.9 points, with a 38 percent shooting average and 35 percent from three-point range. This made him the fourth worst on the team, just ahead of Chris Duhon, Robert Sacre and Devin Ebanks (Andrew Goudelock and Darius Johnson-Odom only attempted three shots combined all regular season, so they're excluded).
This is hardly something to write home about.
Where Meeks really found his value was on defense, which wasn't too hard to do since nearly no one on the team played it.
It seems like the Lakers, as of now, will be keeping D'Antoni on staff, and despite what he says, that means whatever offense they play will be largely based around shooting (don't drink that Kool-Aid and think it won't be).
So, should they pay $1.55 million for a kid who occasionally makes exciting shots, but is more of a liability, or should they look elsewhere?
The Lakers are extremely cash strapped, for lack of a more extreme term, and can't afford to go after the big name free agent guards this season. Right now, two of their most viable options are Nate Robinson and Tracy McGrady, because that's exactly what the Lakers need to do is get older. Not.
After weighing the options, Meeks isn't looking too bad after all.
Sure, he's inconsistent, but that can improve. What's important is that he can help an older team with the one thing they can't learn: speed. You can't teach speed, but you can pick up it's team option.
Keeping Meeks will definitely prove to be more of a positive than a negative.