Aaron McKie signs with the Lakers . . .

[WayOutWest]

In short, the Lakers have committed to Kobe Bryant to a greater level than any other franchise has committed to any player.

P.S.  That is also a horrid mistake.  The Lakers commitment to Magic was alot greater than their commitment to Kobe.  At the time Magic's contract with L.A. was unheard/dreamt of.  Kareem would have been booted had Magic wanted.

[Joe Vancil]

WayOut,

Kareem would have been booted had Magic wanted?  

1.  I don't think so.  Magic, after signing his deal (was it lifetime, or was it just 25 years?), would have been told to stick a sock in it.

2.  That's the other point - MAGIC wouldn't have wanted that.  Wouldn't have even occurred to him.  And with Magic, we're talking a guy who is a lot closer to Abdul-Jabbar's ballpark in terms of value than Bryant is to O'Neal's.

[JoMal]

Way to spin it like everyone here is just talking out the side of the neck Jomal. I have been making the point the Shaq's humiiliating taunt of Jerry Buss in front of an entire arena, in fact the entire NBA world, was THE MAIN reason Dr. Buss made the decision that Kobe would stay and "The Big Full of Himself" was history. I completely concur with WOW, it was the right decision then, it is the right decision now. You can't tell me that ANY player that has demonstrated that he can affect winning and losing by NOT TRYING, and thinks he is bigger than the team, and then insults the owner VERY publicly and intentionally, wouldn't likely be on the chopping block fron ANY OWNER in the NBA, you can't lay all this on Jerry
Buss, I can't think of any owner who wouldn't have said "hey, this cat is constantly deriding me, insulting me, in public no less, showing up for the season fat and out of shape, hates his superstar teammate, and he hates him, and thinks he is bigger than all of us, I don't need this, his superstar teammate, while difficult, is much younger, has many more years left, and puts out 100% all the time, this decision is EASY!"

 

I'm not trying to spin anything, I am saying it, but you leading off your post with a reference of personal bias on the topic is completely to be expected, once again. And if you want to spin the claim that you were the first to state that Shaq humiliated Buss in public, I have no issue with that.

Let me also point out that if you want to change this into a Kings bashing thread because you and other Laker posters really do not want to direct attention onto the current incompetence of the Laker organization, honestly, it is to be expected as well. Those with weakened defenses to fight the truth do what any politician does - it blames their failings being exposed as propaganda generated by the leftish media.

But let me warn you. Try as you all might, if you Laker fans had succeeded in turning this thread into a discussion about how the Kings have fared, or the Bulls, or Spurs, or you-name-the-team, we would have ended this thread 70 posts back.

Oh! Of Course! That was the idea, wasn't it? And here Joe, and Rick, and Skandery and me have not cooperated. Oops. Our bad.

As for comparing Buss to any other owner in the League who has been humiliated in public by one of his players, I would venture that this situation would not have gotten out of hand any where else, to the point where that public humiliation would occur in the first place. The owner was beginning to show a clear preference to Bryant prior to that, and I would guess that extended to any resolution of the feud between Shaq and Kobe. Dealing with egos of this size, it should have come as no surprise Shaq would take his demands public. He's a very public guy.

Joe and you are both completely wrong that "the Lakers tying themselves to Kobe Bryant like no other organization ever has to a superstar player,". The Bulls were so completely tied to Jordan they might as well have chaged the team name to the Chicago Jordans, The Lakers were tied to Magic Johnson in ways Kobe will never be, Bird WAS the Celtics, give me a break on that lame statement! I'm sure there are more I'm not thinking of right now but my point is valid.

As Joe mentioned, what other organization ever purposely made their team WORSE for the sake of one player and at the expense of gambling things will work out for the best through the draft and free agent signings? It this a reasonable way to build back up to a winner? Especially when you started WITH a winner?

Just asking.

Criticizing Laker fans for making comparisons to other teams liek we're some little school yard babies is amusing given just the statement I just made above, let alone all the other comparisons you guys like to make. Additionally, when you talk about how poorly the Lakers are trading and attempting to develop the squad and that no other team is in this much trouble, it invites comparisons and you know darn well it's correct and proper to do so, you have done it, as have everyone here, big deal, I personally think perhaps knowing the window has shut on the Kings and that likely the Lakers may beat them back to the top irks you more than a little, I also find it amusing that you aplaud WOW's EXCELLENT post for not making comparison to other teams "Yeah, but look at the Kings......" but conveniently ignore his comparing the Lakers to
"Teams like the Bulls, Spurs, Pistons, 76'ers and Rockets don't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath." and he includes the Celtics in there as well.
Funny, how it is OK to compare these teams, who all have Chapionship banners hanging from their rafters but not OK to compare them to the Kings, although I do agree with you, until the Kings win something, we shouldn't make any comparisons.

Thanks, Dan, for pointing that out, but even WOW had no idea where he was going with that one, so you might just ask him to clarify his point.

And when you say we all feel that "no other team is in this much trouble", are you sure you are not just expressing your own inner feelings about the Lakers by 'spinning' it to sound like we are all saying the Lakers are in the most trouble of any team in the NBA going into next season? Because I do not recall that particular sentiment being voiced. Perhaps you could guide us to where we said anything close to that.

And speaking of school yard insults: "I personally think perhaps knowing the window has shut on the Kings and that likely the Lakers may beat them back to the top irks you more than a little" is pretty lame, even for you. Let me inform you of something - this isn't even worthy of an insult because it is just so ridiculous.

BTW, what is this overused comment about the window closing for the Kings? I never have quite figured that statement out. Are the Kings the only team in NBA history to have a championship window 'closed' on them? Does it mean they can never, like, crack that window open ever again? Are you saying there is no way in heaven or hell that the League will permit the Kings to dare compete for a championship ever again? What DOES that comment actually mean to you and everybody else who has ever said it, because since I have never once heard it mentioned about any other team, including the Utal Jazz, who should include it on their team banner, I have to ask what all of you clairvoyant Laker posters, (in this case) know about the Kings' future that they are keeping from us Kings fans?

But let's expand on this a bit. I declare here and now that the "window" has also closed on the Lakers. Will they ever open it again? I would say yes they would, because I am not an idiot like Lakers posters tend to be about these "window" thingys. Your key bargaining chip in the short run, the "attraction", if you will, for other key components of winning in the near future and into even the 2 to five year projection, is now playing in Miami. Shaq would have attracted that element of which you talk about, because a dominant center is just down right impossible to find these days. A dominant SG/SF is mostly an oxymoron, no matter how hyped he gets. Because for all of his bravado, Bryant still has not proven to be the next Michael Jordan.

When he does, congradulations to the Lakers will once again be in order. I just don't think I have that to worry about until Kobe is rolling the basketball ahead of his wheelchair.

[westkoast]

Let me also point out that if you want to change this into a Kings bashing thread because you and other Laker posters really do not want to direct attention onto the current incompetence of the Laker organization,

LMAO  Are you saying this JoMaL?  Honestly?  So, by you taking your swipes does that in turn also mean that your ish talking is nothing more than a way to take everyones minds off the state of the Kings?

Must have missed the memo when only you are allowed to take shots at other teams without it being some kind of hidden agenda.  If the Lakers have NO CHANCE at rebuilding and the organization is floundering than I guess its safe to say the Kings window is closing/has been closed.  

[JoMal]

Let me also point out that if you want to change this into a Kings bashing thread because you and other Laker posters really do not want to direct attention onto the current incompetence of the Laker organization,

LMAO  Are you saying this JoMaL?  Honestly?  So, by you taking your swipes does that in turn also mean that your ish talking is nothing more than a way to take everyones minds off the state of the Kings?

Must have missed the memo when only you are allowed to take shots at other teams without it being some kind of hidden agenda.  If the Lakers have NO CHANCE at rebuilding and the organization is floundering than I guess its safe to say the Kings window is closing/has been closed.

Gee, westkoast, you figured out my secret agenda. How did I slip up?

Here I was, thinking I was being soooooo clever by trying to take everyone else's minds off the state of the Kings by bashing the Lakers.

Now what am I going to do. Boo Hoo. :cry:  

[WayOutWest]

WayOut,

Kareem would have been booted had Magic wanted?  

1.  I don't think so.  Magic, after signing his deal (was it lifetime, or was it just 25 years?), would have been told to stick a sock in it.

2.  That's the other point - MAGIC wouldn't have wanted that.  Wouldn't have even occurred to him.  And with Magic, we're talking a guy who is a lot closer to Abdul-Jabbar's ballpark in terms of value than Bryant is to O'Neal's.

No way they tell Magic to put a sock in it.  The Lakers would have done anything for Magic BUT like you said he wasn't that kind of player.

Keeping all our comments in mind, doesn't it make the Bulls break up all that more amazing/unbleivable?  If any team in history should/would have been tied to ONE player it should have been Da Bulls, only Russells Celts are comparable.

[westkoast]

Let me also point out that if you want to change this into a Kings bashing thread because you and other Laker posters really do not want to direct attention onto the current incompetence of the Laker organization,

LMAO  Are you saying this JoMaL?  Honestly?  So, by you taking your swipes does that in turn also mean that your ish talking is nothing more than a way to take everyones minds off the state of the Kings?

Must have missed the memo when only you are allowed to take shots at other teams without it being some kind of hidden agenda.  If the Lakers have NO CHANCE at rebuilding and the organization is floundering than I guess its safe to say the Kings window is closing/has been closed.

Gee, westkoast, you figured out my secret agenda. How did I slip up?

Here I was, thinking I was being soooooo clever by trying to take everyone else's minds off the state of the Kings by bashing the Lakers.

Now what am I going to do. Boo Hoo. :cry:

Well JoMaL if the Laker fans are bashing the Kings to try to get everyones minds off the state of the Lakers.....

Then what is your reasoning for bashing the Lakers?  If Laker fans cant take stabs for fun then you cant either right?  Or did I really miss a memo?

[Joe Vancil]

westkoast,

Jomal isn't talking about the Kings in a context of comparing their situation to the Lakers.  You are.  That's his point.

For my point of view, the Kings, Sixers, Jazz - any other current team you want - is irrelevant to the point at hand.  In terms of relevance, I would look to teams which have tried to rebuild championship or near-championship teams, and done so with success.  Up until now, there's no doubt that the Lakers have done so better than any other team.  Whether that is still the case, or whether the Lakers have abandoned their highly successful way for one which has very poor results is the issue I'm raising.

As it stands now, the only teams I'd call "championship contenders" are Phoenix, Miami, Detroit, Indiana, and San An, with possibly Houston, Dallas, and Denver deserving a passing mention.  Of the teams you've continually referred to, the only one getting any sort of regular mention is the Spurs - probably due to the fact that no one here claims allegiance to Phoenix, Miami, Detroit, Indiana, Houston, Dallas, or Denver.  Instead, we're discussing teams that WON'T win the championship next year - Philadelphia, Sacramento, and Utah - since Derek, rickortreat, JoMal, Ted, and I claim these teams.  If ziggy gets involved in the discussion, I'm sure someone will bring Portland's lack of success into the picture.

Past success does not guarantee future success if you change the model you followed for the past success.  And if the model has been proven as a failed model, it's more likely that the poor model will determine future results than past success will.

For whatever reason - whether it's Kobe, Shaq, Kupchak, or Buss's responsibility - the Lakers have changed their model.  They're playing Chicago Bulls now.  And to me, that means they have more of a chance of duplicating what happened to the Bulls than they do of what happened with the renaissances of the Lakers at the times of acquisition of Kareem and Shaq.

It could work.  Andrew Bynum could develop into the next Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.  But it's also likely he could develop into the next Eric Dampier.

Kareem was a Laker until his last game.  Ditto with Chamberlain, once he was acquired.  Ditto with Mikan.  Trading Shaq is the one departure from that ideal.  

Perhaps the team we should be comparing the current Laker squad to is the Milwaukee squad after the trade of Abdul-Jabbar.  Bridgeman, Winters, Meyers, and someone else (I forget who) turned out to make Milwaukee competent, after a bit.  But they weren't a championship caliber team, either.

In contrast, it took Kareem what - two years? - to get things turned around in Los Angeles?  Shaq did it immediately, while Orlando tanked?

I think I'd rather be in the late-'70's Lakers shoes than those of the late-'70's Bucks...just like I'd rather be in Miami's shoes than in Los Angeles's.
 

[WayOutWest]

They're playing Chicago Bulls now.

Did you not get any sleep Joe, bad example again.

The Bulls kept NONE of their key pieces to their title run.  The Lakers are keeping Kobe and are now bringing back Phil.  The closest model I can think of are the 70's celtics, sans Russel but with Havlicek still in the mix.  They sucked year one but by the second post Russel year they were back on track.

[JoMal]

Then what is your reasoning for bashing the Lakers?  If Laker fans cant take stabs for fun then you cant either right?  Or did I really miss a memo?

So sorry westkoast, here it is. Hope this clears it up, but you apparently DID miss it when it was originally issued:


Date:
   February 14, 2004
To:
   dabods phillyarena posters
From:
   dabods
Subject:
   Laker bashing
 

To Whom It May Concern:

Forthwith and from now on, all participants of the Phillyarena NBA message board, directly to be called simply "The Board", are so informed that all references to the Los Angeles Laker organization, directly to be called "the Lakers", are so instructed as to only refer to "the Lakers" in a negative light, unless so excluded by the microscopic print at the bottom of this page.

So it be known, that no reciprocal insults or innuendos by any "excluded" posters, are allowed, by statute, to be made in a retaliatory fashion back upon the "Insultor", particularly to any representative of the Sacramento Kings organization, directly to be called simply, JoMal.

And further, let it be known that all insults, categorizations, negative comparisons, snide asides, "spin doctoring", and down right mean commentary directed at the Lakers and THEIR limited representatives weakly representing that pathetic excuse for a franchise are not only to be expected, but emphatically ordained as divine.

So be it decreed this fourteenth day of February, 2004.

















[size=8]Fine print: Excluded personages to this decree are any acknowledge escaped prison inmates, psychopaths, recognized terrorists, smog hogs, or residents hemmed in by the San Andreas Fault and the Pacific Ocean and waiting for the Big One to end their misery[/size]

[Joe Vancil]

WayOutWest,

Regarding the Bulls:

*ABSOLUTELY*!  That's the exact point I'm trying to make!  The Bulls break-up was the most foolish thing I've ever seen done in sports.  Here's a team that has just won 3 championships, tied for the best record in the league for the third straight year, have one of the top coaches in the game, have two of the 50 greatest players in history, and they threw it all away FOR WHAT?  The chance to try to do it again?  It was nothing more than the ego of Jerry Krause.  "Organizations win championships."  Not without players they don't, Jerry.  

When you're on the top, you *STAY* on the top!  Badmouth the Jazz for a lot of things, but NOT trading off Stockton and Malone was the right thing to do.  We were almost there, and tried to add pieces to make it work.  (The fact that the pieces we tried to add were meaningless, pointless, stupid pieces is a matter for an entirely different debate.)  That's what San An has done.  That's what Detroit tried to do.  But what you *DON'T* do is take a team that's RIGHT THERE and blast it into smithereens, like Chicago did!

How would history have gone had Chicago extended the contract of Phil Jackson, offered a new deal (at a good pay-rate this time) to Scottie Pippen, and then started dealing away people like Kukoc and Longley and Harper for the new talent needed to stay competitive?  Think Chicago would have missed the playoffs for 6 straight years?

Tell me, Laker fans, would you be happy with your GM and owner if you thought their decisions were going to leave you out of the playoffs until the 2010-2011 season?  Yet that's exactly the model that they're following.  For all of the fantastic success of those championship Bulls...for all of their great "organization" that won championships, who did it get them in the 2000 off-season?  RON MERCER?  And either that year, or the next, EDDIE ROBINSON?  Does anyone other than me remember the ridiculous nature of Mercer's contract?  And that, just to get someone to sign with the Bulls?

The Bulls' "rebuilding" program is the exact thing that Los Angeles should have tried to avoid.  And the way to do that was to KEEP WINNING.  And despite how much of a lazy, pain-in-the-rear as he was, Shaq could have assured that.

 

[westkoast]

westkoast,

Jomal isn't talking about the Kings in a context of comparing their situation to the Lakers.  You are.  That's his point.

For my point of view, the Kings, Sixers, Jazz - any other current team you want - is irrelevant to the point at hand.  In terms of relevance, I would look to teams which have tried to rebuild championship or near-championship teams, and done so with success.  Up until now, there's no doubt that the Lakers have done so better than any other team.  Whether that is still the case, or whether the Lakers have abandoned their highly successful way for one which has very poor results is the issue I'm raising.

As it stands now, the only teams I'd call "championship contenders" are Phoenix, Miami, Detroit, Indiana, and San An, with possibly Houston, Dallas, and Denver deserving a passing mention.  Of the teams you've continually referred to, the only one getting any sort of regular mention is the Spurs - probably due to the fact that no one here claims allegiance to Phoenix, Miami, Detroit, Indiana, Houston, Dallas, or Denver.  Instead, we're discussing teams that WON'T win the championship next year - Philadelphia, Sacramento, and Utah - since Derek, rickortreat, JoMal, Ted, and I claim these teams.  If ziggy gets involved in the discussion, I'm sure someone will bring Portland's lack of success into the picture.

Past success does not guarantee future success if you change the model you followed for the past success.  And if the model has been proven as a failed model, it's more likely that the poor model will determine future results than past success will.

For whatever reason - whether it's Kobe, Shaq, Kupchak, or Buss's responsibility - the Lakers have changed their model.  They're playing Chicago Bulls now.  And to me, that means they have more of a chance of duplicating what happened to the Bulls than they do of what happened with the renaissances of the Lakers at the times of acquisition of Kareem and Shaq.

It could work.  Andrew Bynum could develop into the next Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.  But it's also likely he could develop into the next Eric Dampier.

Kareem was a Laker until his last game.  Ditto with Chamberlain, once he was acquired.  Ditto with Mikan.  Trading Shaq is the one departure from that ideal. 

Perhaps the team we should be comparing the current Laker squad to is the Milwaukee squad after the trade of Abdul-Jabbar.  Bridgeman, Winters, Meyers, and someone else (I forget who) turned out to make Milwaukee competent, after a bit.  But they weren't a championship caliber team, either.

In contrast, it took Kareem what - two years? - to get things turned around in Los Angeles?  Shaq did it immediately, while Orlando tanked?

I think I'd rather be in the late-'70's Lakers shoes than those of the late-'70's Bucks...just like I'd rather be in Miami's shoes than in Los Angeles's.

I am?  Or are fans of other teams taking shots when some of those comments apply to their team also?   A microscope is held up to the Lakers yet that same microscope JoMaL uses doesn't ever zoom in on the Kings.  Then when someone, like myself, points that out it turns into 'Laker fans are trying to bash the Kings to get the attention off the franchise'.  If I were to make a comment about the state of the Kings JoMaL would come in keyboard-a-blazin.

When someone else takes a jab its a funny ha-ha.  When a Laker fan takes a jab there is a hidden agenda.  Why is that?  I cannot take shots without it being me trying to push away the attention on the Laker franchise?

Shaq did not turn the Lakers around in one year.  They were only a few years disconnected from a Finals apperance and had been making the playoffs for a solid decade before he showed up.  It wasnt until PJ and Tex came in did the franchise go from a 2nd round n out to a championship team.  He was a piece to the puzzle.  Not the main and only reason.

[Joe Vancil]

WayOut,

That's an even worse example.  Boston didn't force Russell out, or trade him because he was too lazy/insulted the owner/had too big of an ego/bankrupted small countries/enjoyed clubbing baby seals.

Russell RETIRED.  Kind of happens when you get old.  And if Shaq had retired, I'd be giving you a pass on those years - just like I do on 1974, 1990, 1992-95.

There's a difference between trying to replace a Russell or Abdul-Jabbar or Magic Johnson or Shaquille O'Neal and willingly sending one packing.  The difference is that the latter is AVOIDABLE.

 

[JoMal]

The chance to try to do it again?  It was nothing more than the ego of Jerry Krause.  "Organizations win championships."  Not without players they don't, Jerry.  

 

Whoa, Joe!!! Isn't Krause's comment there EXACTLY the point some Laker posters are trying to drive home to us? The Laker organization, in this case, will win once more.

I never noticed how the Laker posters here are right in line with that genius of team development, Jerry Krause.  

[Joe Vancil]

westkoast,

I am? Or are fans of other teams taking shots when some of those comments apply to their team also? A microscope is held up to the Lakers yet that same microscope JoMaL uses doesn't ever zoom in on the Kings. Then when someone, like myself, points that out it turns into 'Laker fans are trying to bash the Kings to get the attention off the franchise'. If I were to make a comment about the state of the Kings JoMaL would come in keyboard-a-blazin.

Tell you what:  when we start a thread about the recent Kings' signings, I'll equally bad-mouth anyone who wants to talk about the struggles of the Lakers as justification for the mismanagement of the Kings' franchise.  Fair enough?

I think Sacramento has done some INCREDIBLY stupid things recently.  Start that thread up, and I'll be glad to detail them.

And if you want to start a Jazz thread, I'll detail the moves Utah has made - which ones I think are good and which ones I think are bad.  And I'll not say, "But other teams suck, too" to justify or defend anything.

Shaq *DID* turn the Lakers around in one year.  When he came, the Lakers were in the playoffs one of the previous two seasons - but not a threat to win it all since the 1991 season.  Immediately, the Lakers were a threat to win it all.  They just didn't accomplish that until 2000.

Apparently, you Laker fans think that 1996-97 to 1998-99 was a terrible time.  It wasn't.  It was no worse than 2002-03 to 2003-04.  I'd equate those years to 1981, 83, 84, and 86 - still GREAT time to be a Laker fan.

The problem that I have is when a team's fans would prefer a season like 2004-05 to one like 1996-97...."because it's part of the plan."