definitely. nothing better than a 42 year old washed up nba player who managed to play in 12 games 2 years ago before being cut by Dallas.
Well at this point if it's btw rodman and oakley I'd go with rodman. At least there have been reports of him TRYING to get into shape for the rigors of the NBA.
Charles Oakley is a lot more disciplined that Rodman when it comes to playing for the team. At least, Charles will be there for practice on time, and on a consistent basis. The Lakers or Kings can take Rodman as far as I'm concerned.
The last thing we want is a distraction. We only piced up Oakley for some veteran leadership going into the playoffs and because he could step in during the next few weeks for a few injured players. Also, he knows his place. He won't be whining when everyone comes back and he's not getting into games.
Yes rodman never comes to practice, he's not disciplined, he's a bad boy blablabla... The thing is, the worm knows how to win games and he knows that it takes sacrifice. He's always been a hard-worker on the court. In 95 when the bulls got him, everyone thought it was a bad decision and that he would bring chaos to the team (what he did in san antonio). Look at the result...he was the missing piece for the 3 titles. The problem : we're not in 95, we're in 2004 and he's 42, he's not been playing for 4 years, and he is like a bomb who can explode at any moment. And he needs a coach like Phil Jackson to keep him quiet, not a coach like Van Gundy. So I would say no, we shouldn't take him, he wouldn't fit on the team. But I still can't figure out why they took Oakley...as an assistant coach, ok, but as a player ?? What can he bring to us on the court ??
