Best record = title?

[westkoast]

Rick imma keep this reply breif because I have a meeting in a minute but I will respond to your full post when I get back.  One thing tho...the Lakers won 3 years in a row and were pretty dominate in those 3 years in the regular season and the playoffs.   The Lakers of the 80s won 5 titles in 10 years.  How is that not winning time and time again?

Boston has a crazy record that will never be broken but they were also playing in a league with a tiny bit of teams and basketball wasnt as popular then so the amount of quality players comming into the league each year was alot lower.  Not to take anything away from them...I just think its a little different.  The Bulls point I do agree with tho.  Dominating isnt even the word for that team.  Only reason they didnt win 7 in a row is because MJ took off.

[WayOutWest]

Not much of a challenge but I'm bored.  

Rick, you REALLY need to do some research since you don't seem to know much about NBA history.

There's a big difference between what you spend and what you get.  Evaluation of talent is a big factor.  The Knicks have a huge payroll, but the players they have aren't worth it.  They suck at evaluating talent, which is why they continue to fail.  Note that all the scribes continually pick NY to win the Atlantic, based on their inability to evaluate talent and chemistry.

Durry the Shaq/Kobe era the Lakers were in 5th place as far as salary, so please get a clue about buying titles in the NBA.  The Knicks, Blazers, Kings and Mavs (Kings/Mavs I'm not sure about) all had higher payrolls yet didn't come close to accomplshing what the Lakers did, THREE titles in a row.  Only the Spurs have gotten more bang for the buck and spent more wisely than the Lakers.  I admire what Pop has done in SA, IMO he's actually out managed the great Jerry West when he was the Laker GM.  The Lakers, West, have always been superior to all other franchises in evaluating draft talent.  West has only passed up better talent two or three times in the draft, that's a remarkable record considering the draft busts and the draft position the Lakers typically get.

Do a little research and you'll see what I'm talking about.

This is one of the big reasons why teams like the Yankees don't win every year.  Spending all the extra money gives them a big advantage, but it isn't always enough.

No doubt, but look at what NY, Portland, Dallas and Sactown spend and what they get then look at what LA, SA spend and what they've accomplished.

The salary cap has made the NBA more competitive, and it also causes teams problems.  One of the reasons, that the Lakers AREN'T a dynasty, in my book, is that their teams don't win year after year like the Bulls and the Celtics did.  Your latest version, the Shaq and Kobe show was cut short, mroe than anything else by the lack of character of the players.  The immature me first attitude of Shaq and Kobe led to the Lakers not getting a dyasty.  They also paid too much for those two, killing their chances of attracting enough players to support Batman and Robin.

Lakers have won back to back titles THREE times and have threepeated once, they've been a dynasty since the 40's.  The Lakers have had runs of 4 titles in 5 years and 5 titles in 8 years, dynasty is as dynasty does.

These days in the NBA, two stars and a bunch of decent role players is all it takes to win  a championship.  There isn't as much good talent as there are teams in the league.  In the old days, it was much, much harder to assemble a good team, when you needed four or five top quality players and had to keep them together for years to achieve success.  What the Celtics accomplished back then means so much more, because it was so much harder to do.

 

In the old days?  Get a clue please!  The Celtics were notorious for buying up all the talent durring their run in the 60's.  It wasn't even fair, they could outspend everyone and that's why they won so many titles at Philly's and LA's expense.  You had an HOF starting 5 vs Wilt and 5 HOFers vs West and Baylor.  Then you had the watered down 90's when the Bulls dominated.  That was the most watered down version of the NBA since the 70's when the ABA competed for and GOT some the best basketball talent.  The peak of NBA talent and competition was the 80's when the Lakers dominated, so you're right it WAS much more impressive and that's where the Lakers made their mark.  You're just proving my point about the Lakers.

These days since it only takes two really good players, teams can often buy themselves a ring or two.  That's not a dynasty, that's just mortageing your future.  The Lakers got their rings, but now they only have one start, and they're not in the playoffs.  Is it better than what the Sixers did, building a team only to fall short, and then struggle to start over, having thrown too much money at marginal players?  I'd say so, but it sucks to be a Lakers fan these days- not much to look forward to.

Thees days?  Are you joking?  Name a team that's won back to back titles since the Bulls, PLEASE!

Is Iverson worth what they pay him?  Probably not- but he does play hard every night and would be a serious MVP candidate if the Sixers were a better team.  I'd say for all he's given to the team, he's worth the money much more so than an Alan Houston, but not so much as a Shaq or Duncan.

Iverson is closer to Allen Houston than he is to Shaq, TD or KG.  Iverson is a waste of talent because of his selfish punk attitude.  PRACTICE!!!!  What a joke!

Get a clue and a couple of facts before you try to argue the Lakers place in NBA history.

[cleanup crew]

bods can you move this junk off Realitys thread?

Hold Laker Services elsewhere please.


 

[rickortreat]

Iverson leads the league in scoring and steals.  He's third in the league in assists.  He also has attended practice regularly.

Maybe it's the media's coveage that has given you a distorted view.  When Iverson had his rant about practice, he was being sarcastic.  This was right after the Sixers were blown out of the playoffs by a Celtic team that really wasn't good, but clearly outplayed the Sixers and also outcoached Larry Brown.

Brown was moaning about practice, and Iverson's unwillingness to attend, Larry's extremely boring, long and difficult practices.  It wasn't practice or a lack thereof that lost the Sixers that series, it was Brown not running a defense to defend against perimiter shooters.  He never installed a defence to defend against that so practice wouldn't have accomplished anything.  That was very clear to Iverson, and to the fans of the team who understand basketball.

Since JOB has come, Iverson has been a model citizen and team leader.  Part of it is his growing up as a human being, and part of it is the recognition that with all the new players practice is very important for the team's development, and his development as a point guard.

With AI's ability he should LEAD the league in assists.  He doesn't because he's still too selfish.  Everytime he manages over 10 assists the Sixers win. That is the key stat for this team. When AI gets the other players involved, he is one of the best players in the league, ever.  All he needs to do is perfect that aspect of his game, and stop trying to win all by himself and he'll become a truly great player.  Something 7 footers like Duncan and Shaq never have to do.  All they do is finish, rebound and defend.  It is much harder to be a good point in the NBA than it is to be a good big man.  

[Derek Bodner]

Erm....rick, Iverson wasn't being sarcastic at all.

And we couldn't defend the 3 because of personnel, not system.  It was rogers who killed us because neither dc nor deke could cover anyone on the perimeter.  It was off the pick and roll with these 2 bigmen that got us killed.

BTW, Iverson still misses practices.  Although now rather than flat out skipping them he gives excuses.  And JOB's never publicly criticized his players in public.

I believe Iverson showed up late to that final game of the Boston series.  Literally.  He was responding to criticism, not trying to prove a point by being sarcastic, a sarcasm apparently only you caught.

[rickortreat]

Dabods, if you don't realize A.I. was being sarcastic, you must not have heard his say it.  It was completly obvious that he was being sarcastic, ridiculing Brown for lamenting a lack of practice, effectively blaming Iverson for his failings as a coach, and the lack of talent on the squad.

Practice?  We're talking about practice.  (We just got our asses beat by the Boston Celtics) and we're talking about practice!?  He was incredulous that the sportswriters were buying into Brown's B.S.  So was I.

You have to hear the inflection in his voice.  I understood it perfectly.  The media is filled with a bunch of no-talent jackasses trying to make names for themsleves.  It has nothing to do with the truth, what really happened.  It's about painting players as this or that.

Because of his thug image, Iverson gets it worse than most.  Who really has a bad attitutude, AI who gives it his all on the court, or Big Dog, who wouldn't even try to play here because he was insulted that a rookie beat him out for a starting slot? A.I. who is a familly man, or Kobe who was caught messing around outside of his marriage?

[JoMal]

Not much of a challenge but I'm bored.  

Rick, you REALLY need to do some research since you don't seem to know much about NBA history.

There's a big difference between what you spend and what you get.  Evaluation of talent is a big factor.  The Knicks have a huge payroll, but the players they have aren't worth it.  They suck at evaluating talent, which is why they continue to fail.  Note that all the scribes continually pick NY to win the Atlantic, based on their inability to evaluate talent and chemistry.

Do a little research and you'll see what I'm talking about.

This is one of the big reasons why teams like the Yankees don't win every year.  Spending all the extra money gives them a big advantage, but it isn't always enough.

No doubt, but look at what NY, Portland, Dallas and Sactown spend and what they get then look at what LA, SA spend and what they've accomplished.

The salary cap has made the NBA more competitive, and it also causes teams problems.  One of the reasons, that the Lakers AREN'T a dynasty, in my book, is that their teams don't win year after year like the Bulls and the Celtics did.  Your latest version, the Shaq and Kobe show was cut short, mroe than anything else by the lack of character of the players.  The immature me first attitude of Shaq and Kobe led to the Lakers not getting a dyasty.  They also paid too much for those two, killing their chances of attracting enough players to support Batman and Robin.

Lakers have won back to back titles THREE times and have threepeated once, they've been a dynasty since the 40's.  The Lakers have had runs of 4 titles in 5 years and 5 titles in 8 years, dynasty is as dynasty does.

These days in the NBA, two stars and a bunch of decent role players is all it takes to win  a championship.  There isn't as much good talent as there are teams in the league.  In the old days, it was much, much harder to assemble a good team, when you needed four or five top quality players and had to keep them together for years to achieve success.  What the Celtics accomplished back then means so much more, because it was so much harder to do.

In the old days?  Get a clue please!  The Celtics were notorious for buying up all the talent durring their run in the 60's.  It wasn't even fair, they could outspend everyone and that's why they won so many titles at Philly's and LA's expense.  You had an HOF starting 5 vs Wilt and 5 HOFers vs West and Baylor.  Then you had the watered down 90's when the Bulls dominated.  That was the most watered down version of the NBA since the 70's when the ABA competed for and GOT some the best basketball talent.  The peak of NBA talent and competition was the 80's when the Lakers dominated, so you're right it WAS much more impressive and that's where the Lakers made their mark.  You're just proving my point about the Lakers.

These days since it only takes two really good players, teams can often buy themselves a ring or two.  That's not a dynasty, that's just mortageing your future.  The Lakers got their rings, but now they only have one start, and they're not in the playoffs.  Is it better than what the Sixers did, building a team only to fall short, and then struggle to start over, having thrown too much money at marginal players?  I'd say so, but it sucks to be a Lakers fan these days- not much to look forward to.

Thees days?  Are you joking?  Name a team that's won back to back titles since the Bulls, PLEASE!

Is Iverson worth what they pay him?  Probably not- but he does play hard every night and would be a serious MVP candidate if the Sixers were a better team.  I'd say for all he's given to the team, he's worth the money much more so than an Alan Houston, but not so much as a Shaq or Duncan.

Iverson is closer to Allen Houston than he is to Shaq, TD or KG.  Iverson is a waste of talent because of his selfish punk attitude.  PRACTICE!!!!  What a joke!

Get a clue and a couple of facts before you try to argue the Lakers place in NBA history.

Sorry, WOW, but some of this stuff simply is not worthy of you.

Durry the Shaq/Kobe era the Lakers were in 5th place as far as salary, so please get a clue about buying titles in the NBA.  The Knicks, Blazers, Kings and Mavs (Kings/Mavs I'm not sure about) all had higher payrolls yet didn't come close to accomplshing what the Lakers did, THREE titles in a row.  Only the Spurs have gotten more bang for the buck and spent more wisely than the Lakers.  I admire what Pop has done in SA, IMO he's actually out managed the great Jerry West when he was the Laker GM.  The Lakers, West, have always been superior to all other franchises in evaluating draft talent.  West has only passed up better talent two or three times in the draft, that's a remarkable record considering the draft busts and the draft position the Lakers typically get.

The Lakers paid the one and only player in the NBA worthy of the money, paid a good guard the going rate, then filled the roster with road kill. THIS is what you call getting more bang for the buck? Other teams had to pay inflated contracts to the next best players, and many more of them, because they did NOT have access to the one and only player in the NBA worthy of the money being spent. Under that handicap, last year, the King's aging payroll was hardly a million more then the Lakers and that did not equate with getting out of the second round.

This year, the Lakers bang for the buck, as you call it and wise spending places them with the ninth highest NBA payroll. That is NINTH, WOW, which puts the Lakers in the same, but not quite as worse, situation as the Knicks (first), the Trailblazers (third), the Timberwolves (sixth), and the Magic (seventh). Detriot. last year's championship Pistons, BTW, come in at 19th. Those Spurs? Yeah, you could say they have done a better job then the Lakers. Much better. They are all the way down at 24th. Phoenix struggled to achieve the best record in the NBA by paying the 25th highest payroll out. The poor Nuggest, under Karl, had to comply by paying out the 26th highest.

Funny how the genious GM fails you once that one NBA player worthy of the money feels unwanted and wants to go home. Oh, and the Heat's payroll is 15th, if you are wondering. Wonder how much of a genious Pat suddenly must be these days. Those genious brain cells seem to get traded east as well.

Welcome to the reality of 2005.

Evaluating talent? What the hell was so hard about drafting Worthy or Magic? Or trading for Chamberlain, Jabber, O'Neal, and Bryant, though Kobe was something of a question mark at the time. The talent was that the Lakers reside in LA. There is something of a media hub there, I hear. Players in Milwaukie, Orlando, Philadelphia, or anywhere other then New York seem to gravitate to places where their marketing skills can best be used. Just pay me my contract money - nothing special, just what I am worth, and let my ego flow. THIS is Laker GM genious?? When their own star player tells them to go to hell and trade me, there is the Laker genious GM, giving him a call, offering his sympathy, and apologizing for having to take Jabber off their hands. Give me a break!!!

BTW, who were those recent draft picks selected by the Lakers that all had a pre-draft slide built for them leading directly to the Hall of Fame?  

[WayOutWest]

Sorry, WOW, but some of this stuff simply is not worthy of you.

Like I said I was a little bored.

The Lakers paid the one and only player in the NBA worthy of the money, paid a good guard the going rate, then filled the roster with road kill. THIS is what you call getting more bang for the buck? Other teams had to pay inflated contracts to the next best players, and many more of them, because they did NOT have access to the one and only player in the NBA worthy of the money being spent. Under that handicap, last year, the King's aging payroll was hardly a million more then the Lakers and that did not equate with getting out of the second round.

That's exactly my point.  The Lakers were smarter with their money, under West, I don't even think about defending Bitch Cupcake.  TD is the other commodity in the NBA that's worth the big bucks.  Teams that were dumb enough to pay Shaq dollars for players like Webber just cause that's the market dictates is the perfect example of why the Lakers are superior in that regard.  The Lakers had the ability to overpay for some roll players but they didn't.  That was very frustrating to Laker fans, especially the one's on this board but in the end the Lakers ended up winning 3 titles in a row and had a decent shot at 5 in a row.

This year, the Lakers bang for the buck, as you call it and wise spending places them with the ninth highest NBA payroll. That is NINTH, WOW, which puts the Lakers in the same, but not quite as worse, situation as the Knicks (first), the Trailblazers (third), the Timberwolves (sixth), and the Magic (seventh). Detriot. last year's championship Pistons, BTW, come in at 19th. Those Spurs? Yeah, you could say they have done a better job then the Lakers. Much better. They are all the way down at 24th. Phoenix struggled to achieve the best record in the NBA by paying the 25th highest payroll out. The poor Nuggest, under Karl, had to comply by paying out the 26th highest.

Read the post again, I've given the credit to West, who's gone and will take a long time to replace.  The fact that problems between the Buss and Shaq were the final straw in Shaq's Laker career is a shame but you can't argue with the Lakers success in this decade so far.  Only the Spurs have a shot a equalling the Laker run of the 2000's.

Funny how the genious GM fails you once that one NBA player worthy of the money feels unwanted and wants to go home. Oh, and the Heat's payroll is 15th, if you are wondering. Wonder how much of a genious Pat suddenly must be these days. Those genious brain cells seem to get traded east as well.

See response above, red herrings are for posters like Rick, not me.  You should know that JoMal.

Welcome to the reality of 2005.

You're not buying into the "Malik Rose" is the key to the NBA championship theory are you?

Evaluating talent? What the hell was so hard about drafting Worthy or Magic? Or trading for Chamberlain, Jabber, O'Neal, and Bryant, though Kobe was something of a question mark at the time. The talent was that the Lakers reside in LA. There is something of a media hub there, I hear. Players in Milwaukie, Orlando, Philadelphia, or anywhere other then New York seem to gravitate to places where their marketing skills can best be used. Just pay me my contract money - nothing special, just what I am worth, and let my ego flow. THIS is Laker GM genious?? When their own star player tells them to go to hell and trade me, there is the Laker genious GM, giving him a call, offering his sympathy, and apologizing for having to take Jabber off their hands. Give me a break!!!

The sunshine dollars/media market arguement has been destroyed time and time again on this board, won't bother addressing that one.  Worthy was West's first real mark on the Lakers.  Worthy was not a lock with Cummnigs and Wilkens there for the taking.  West even threatened to quit when Jerry Buss had a handshake agreement with the Dallas owner to swap Worthy for Magic's buddy Aguire.  Magic was very influential in his Laker days regarding personnel, including coaches, and he pushed for Aguire after Worthy was shut down and intimidated by the Celtics to the point of uselessness.

BTW, who were those recent draft picks selected by the Lakers that all had a pre-draft slide built for them leading directly to the Hall of Fame?

I'll try and simplify this point for you.  The Lakers have not passed on a more talented player in the NBA draft since 1980 with two exceptions.  And those exceptions were late 1st round draft picks.  I think one was drafting George ahead of Manu or somebody.  There are no Jordan/Bowie fiascos in Laker history.  They've always been better at spotting talent.  Try and find a player they passed up in the NBA draft that ended up being worth something.  The Lakers don't make those kind of mistakes and end up doing well despite picking late most of the time.

[rickortreat]

The media argument has not been put to bed in anyone's mind except bozo Laker fans.  It's very clear that S.C. has a certain cache to it that affords the players there opportunites for additional income, far above any other city than NYC.  That plus the fact that the Lakers had Shaq is what enabled them to attract Karl Malone and Gary Payton on the cheap.  Too bad they didn't have enough left to put the Lakers over the top againt Detroit.

As far as the Lakers ability to pick top talent, that was true when West was GM. Since he's left, the Lakers have gone way down hill, and picks lately that have surprised to the upside since West left?  None I can think of.  It's very tough to draft successfully that late in the NBA.  If the Lakers were successful that way, Shaq might very well have overlooked his differences with the owner and the rest of the squad.  As it is, West is gone, and the team has decayed dramatically in that time.  It's going to be a long time before Laker fans are happy again, IMO.

3 Championship in a row aren't a dynasty to me, although considering the salary cap and free agency, perhaps I should rethink that.  However, the Bulls did it, and that sugggests that while difficult it is not impossible.  It should be hard to acquire the dynasty label.  

I didn't know that little tid-bit about Aguire and Worthy.  Lucky for you Jerry West was there to stop that.  I loved Aguire, but there's no comparision between him and the quinessential power forward in James Worthy.  Worthy was a great, great player, who just happened to get matched up to the greatest PF of all time in Kevin McHale.  Worthy was more athletic and could run the floor better, but no-one had as many good post-up moves as KM, who was also a solid defender, and the only one Charles Barkley couldn't intimidate.

[Reality]

The brilliant Laker personell moves. :rolleyes:  :rofl:

Kareem after getting the Bucks in the finals twice gets trade for whom?  ___ ___ yes fill in those blanks.  No payments made to Milwaukee ownership there.  Nothing chance it was about getting the Marketing L.A. back in the spotlight.

Next we have Gail Goodrich and his stellar new Orleans Jazz career.  Ya lets reminice about Gail with the Jazz.  Oh the highlights.  I can just see Gail now um...well i can't.  They give Magic and two high draft picks to L.A. for Gail.  A young team.  Then they go out of business.  No fix there. :rolleyes:

Next we have the Big Apestotle.  Jerry Wests most genius move.  Now granted, Shaq had visions of becoming even worse then the current crop of rappers.  Fat Joe look out.  So was it Wests genius or Shaqs fantacy of being a rappa dappa?  At any rate what Steve Hartman bona fide Laker radioist says:  "The most creative (cough cough) newly installed cap system set up by Sternfish to make this trade happen."  Ask WOW who steve Hartman is before wasting bandwith to me how Hartman is biased.  He is surrounded by Krishnas 24/7 yet still can be extremely reasonable.  Reality.



Moving on to the next marketing puppet, Kowbeee.   Once again we have a new franchise in Charlotte in need of young talent to build around.  Instead they give up Kobadiah for Vlade Divac.  Ya right.

Get ready for Yao for Chucky Atkins in another *brilliant* Stern move.

More juice on the way.
you guys are better then Ax stock.

[WayOutWest]

The media argument has not been put to bed in anyone's mind except bozo Laker fans.  It's very clear that S.C. has a certain cache to it that affords the players there opportunites for additional income, far above any other city than NYC.  That plus the fact that the Lakers had Shaq is what enabled them to attract Karl Malone and Gary Payton on the cheap.  Too bad they didn't have enough left to put the Lakers over the top againt Detroit.

Name players other than Payton and Malone who took paycuts to play in SoCal?  The only guy I can think of is Rick Fox.  Maybe you missed the discussion Rick but the SoCal attraction argument was but to rest on this board.  It's clearly not true, but knock yourself out and name the long list of players who came to play for the Lakers or Clippers for cheap.

As far as the Lakers ability to pick top talent, that was true when West was GM. Since he's left, the Lakers have gone way down hill, and picks lately that have surprised to the upside since West left?  None I can think of.  It's very tough to draft successfully that late in the NBA.  If the Lakers were successful that way, Shaq might very well have overlooked his differences with the owner and the rest of the squad.  As it is, West is gone, and the team has decayed dramatically in that time.  It's going to be a long time before Laker fans are happy again, IMO.

It may or may not be a long time, the Lakers have set the standard for rebuilding for a chapionship, no team has completely rebuilt and won a title as fast as the Lakers, 12 years is the mark to beat.  With West gone it will be alot harder, I've known that since the moment he left.

3 Championship in a row aren't a dynasty to me, although considering the salary cap and free agency, perhaps I should rethink that.  However, the Bulls did it, and that sugggests that while difficult it is not impossible.  It should be hard to acquire the dynasty label.

 

What about the others I mentioned, 4 titles in 5 years or 5 titles in 8 years?

I didn't know that little tid-bit about Aguire and Worthy.  Lucky for you Jerry West was there to stop that.  I loved Aguire, but there's no comparision between him and the quinessential power forward in James Worthy.  Worthy was a great, great player, who just happened to get matched up to the greatest PF of all time in Kevin McHale.  Worthy was more athletic and could run the floor better, but no-one had as many good post-up moves as KM, who was also a solid defender, and the only one Charles Barkley couldn't intimidate.

Barkely couldn't intimidate Rick Mahorn either.  When West drafted Worthy he drew some criticism for passing up on Terry Cummings and Dominique Wilkins.  Some people felt West bought into the hype of Worthy comming off a NCAA chapionship ala Magic, but West's vision was way ahead of everyone else.  Worthy was the first in a new breed of small forward.  Dr J was the foundation for the mold that players like Worthy, Barkely, Bird, Malone & Wilkins tried to emulate.  Worthy and Wilkins followed the Dr J mold closer than Bird because of their athleticism and because Sir Charles and the Mailman ended up developing the power game they set their own standard.

[westkoast]

Leave it to Reality to turn a good debate into a tard fight on the local short bus.

LA marketing in the 70s? :lol: :lol: :lol:  Are you serious?  Did you forget that there was no heavy bazillion dollar endorsments, tv contracts, movie roles, or anything of that nature then for basketball players then?  If im not mistaken the first major movie role was for Kareem in airplane in the 80s and the first major marketing campaign for big bucks involved Bird and Magic in the 80s.    Not to mention these guys got a pretty cheap paycheck then considering what even the worst player in this league makes now.  Players then were paid well but weren't making so much more than everyone else in the nation to play ball.

[Reality]

Check the year he was traded and how soon thereafter Magic was added.  Late 70s which gave the Lakers the 80 onward basis.

Then sing "Game 5 doesn't matter" while dancing to Fat Joe.

[westkoast]

Check the year he was traded and how soon thereafter Magic was added.  Late 70s which gave the Lakers the 80 onward basis.

Then sing "Game 5 doesn't matter" while dancing to Fat Joe.

What on god's green earth are you talking about?  Fat Joe?  LOL

Maybe you forgot to have Alfred clean off your bat-glasses so you could read what I was commenting on?

[JoMal]

Like I said I was a little bored.

I see.

That's exactly my point.  The Lakers were smarter with their money, under West, I don't even think about defending Bitch Cupcake.  TD is the other commodity in the NBA that's worth the big bucks.  Teams that were dumb enough to pay Shaq dollars for players like Webber just cause that's the market dictates is the perfect example of why the Lakers are superior in that regard.  The Lakers had the ability to overpay for some roll players but they didn't.  That was very frustrating to Laker fans, especially the one's on this board but in the end the Lakers ended up winning 3 titles in a row and had a decent shot at 5 in a row. .

Ah, but that is exactly my point as well. Paying Shaq the money isn't smart; it was necessary. So was paying Kobe his going rate. Where you are not making any sense is with how other teams have to compete with that and how the Lakers themselves acquired supporting talent at less money. Having Shaq meant the potential of winning a championship. HELLO??? Do you thing guys like Payton, Malone, Richmond, etc chose their future teams as free agents by picking the highest bidder for their talents? Was the fact that the media wasteland that is Los Angeles made them all hesitate before beating down the Laker doors to plead for a spot on the bench next to Shaq not a factor?

And putting out large contracts to players like Webber is the ONLY way other teams can field any players to compete. The thing you simply are not getting, WOW, is that other teams HAVE to pay higher salaries for these players, AND FOR MORE OF THEM. They can't get by having just one upper echelon player, or two. They have to have someone in every slot. The Lakers don't have to overpay mediocre players when they have to turn superstars away.

Who did Jordan have besides Pippen who came close to the average NBA salary? By your logic, Krause is therefore the equal in genius of West.

Genius tags in today's NBA should NOT be reserved for GM's, including West, who work in bigger markets with more resources, with more activities for interested players, who have superstar players contacting THEM to play on their teams. It should NOT be applied to GM's who can simply ice out lesser markets to compete for free agents; or are always on the short list of superstars demanding a trade from other teams.

Genius GM status should be applied for the guys in San Antonio, who do not have those advantages, but still win championships. It should be reserved for guys in Sacramento, who have nothing to offer but money and the opportunity to get to face these marketing behemoths late in the playoffs, when for years THERE WAS NO ONE INTERESTED IN PLAYING THERE.  

I think one was drafting George ahead of Manu or somebody.

Not just Manu, who everyone passed on until the Spurs selected him late in the second round with the 57th pick. The Lakers also passed on Kirilenko, who was picked right after the Lakers took George.

I'll try and simplify this point for you.  The Lakers have not passed on a more talented player in the NBA draft since 1980 with two exceptions.  And those exceptions were late 1st round draft picks.  I think one was drafting George ahead of Manu or somebody.  There are no Jordan/Bowie fiascos in Laker history.  They've always been better at spotting talent.  Try and find a player they passed up in the NBA draft that ended up being worth something.  The Lakers don't make those kind of mistakes and end up doing well despite picking late most of the time.

.

How simple do you want it? Okay, here it is. Every GM has regrets. Since West took Worthy, how many second round players have been solid NBA players? Now, correct me if I am wrong, but some of those guys were picked after the Laker chose their first round guy, and I think some of them might have turned out pretty good.

For instance -

Do you think West, who was still in LA at the time, should have drafted Brad Miller back in 1998? Thirty genius GM's passed on him coming out of college, including West and believe me, anyone who drafted after at least #10 in the first round that year really blew it, didn't they? The Clippers wanted a center? Olowokandi was their guy, not some white stiff from Purdue.

BTW, how IS Sam Jacobson doing these days? As good as Corey Benjamin, taken right after him, or Nazi Mohammed, taken 29th. Where is that bum, Rashad Lewis, taken by the idiot GM of Seattle as the third pick of the second round that year? Oh, and as Jacobsen was that shooting guard coveted by West, it was a good thing he picked him instead of Cutino Mobley, who drifted all the way down to Houston at the 41st pick.

More? Glad you asked –

Ben Wallace had to wait until the Oklahoma City Cavalry selected him 13th in the 1996 CBA draft, extending his unworthiness not only through all the NBA losers who actually drafted someone else that year, but 12 CBA geniuses.

The Lakers, choosing 24th that year, preferred Derek Fisher. Hmmm. Ben Wallace or Derek Fisher, Ben or Derek. I guess the Lakers had no need then, as now, for the dominant power forward Wallace turned out to be. All those years that the Lakers complained about not having a big body to spell the wear and tear on Shaq and Fisher was their guy. Okay, so who else was available? Othella Harrington, who went to the Rockets as the first guy selected in the second round. Not great, but he was a better choice then Fisher. No?? Okay, how about Malik Rose.  I know you made some weird reference to him that I am sorry I just could not quite pick up on your meaning there, but his availability until Charlotte chose him at #44 is worthy of note, as a comparison to Fisher. Oh, and not that they turned out to be better then Derek, but guys like Shandon Anderson (picked 54th by Utah), and Drew Barry (57th by Seattle….didn't they also pick Rashad Lewis?? Good thing THEIR GM isn't the genius West is, huh?) is certainly worth noting, especially Barry, who probably would have been a decent acquisition for the Lakers.

In 2000, the Laker faithful raved about Mark Madsen's unorthodox game. Najera's game was a much worse fit, I take it (38th by the Rockets). But with Kobe, you probably had no place for the guy the Bucks picked at 43, who....how did you put it, WOW? Never "ended up being worth something". Tell Michael Redd that.    

Hope I haven't been boring you, WOW.

Now it is your turn to find who the Lakers DIDN'T draft all those West years who may have turned out better.

Sam Jacobsen!!  :rofl:  :rofl: