Aaron McKie signs with the Lakers . . .

[Laker Fan]

Pity your memory is so short JoMal, but then, you are extremely old (oldest one here after me I believe but you are still MANY years my senior) so I guess we can cut you some slack. But I have have heard the closed window thingy with reference to the Jazz more than I can count, I've even heard the same about the Spurs prior to the signing of Duncan and ditto for the Wolves, who now have probably for the forseeable future packed their window thingy in the attic slammed and locked shut (sorry JN).

I understand your pain, I know how it feels to not have a winner up there in cowtwon USA (actually I don't, but false empathy is better than no empathy) but projecting your frustration (that's what they call it, projecting) will only lead to more frustration.

JoMal you wrote:
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.

Well allow me to guide you:

Randy wrote:
QUOTE (Guest_Randy @ Aug 26 2005, 08:56 AM)
I think it's funny though that you expect them to do it overnight!  

You JoMal, replied:
I expect the Lakers to do it overnight? News to me. I expect them to fail to do it at all, or at the very least, have similar success at it as any other mediocre NBA team.

Notice that "I expect them to fail to do it at all" line? Must have slipped you mind huh, but then, you are extremely old. :rolleyes:

[WayOutWest]

WayOut,

That's an even worse example.

The reason I use that example is because unlike the Bulls, the Lakers are keeping at least ONE key piece.  Had the Lakers dumped both Kobe and Shaq then I would expect the Bulls model to hold true in L.A.  

For what ever reason the Lakers don't have their #1 option, they still hold on to key piece, Kobe.  That model of rebuilding is closest to Boston, the second fiddle stayed when the first fiddle was gone.

[JoMal]

I am?  Or are fans of other teams taking shots when some of those comments apply to their team also?

Please do bring it to the front westkoast.

Which comments made about the Lakers apply to the Kings? Are you comparing Shaq to Divac? I hope not. Shaq is still a force in the NBA and will be for several more years. You have the current version of Vlade. How's that franchise cornerstone working out for you?

And while Odom is a fine player, is HE really the second cornerstone the Lakers are going to build around? He has to be now. He is all you have left from the O'Neal trade, unless you want to include Kwame Brown.

I would like for you to tell us all how you think the Lakers and the Kings are actually in a dog race to improvement in the coming years? Could the Lakers have benefitted by trading for Bonzi Wells or signing SAR to the exception instead of trading for Brown and signing McKie? Would teaching the triangle to all your new players...I don't know.....been an easier task if Tex Winter had not retired?

Does Winters' loss factor into your assessment of the Lakers' improvement under the latest Jackson regime?

Maybe you are referring to the Kings trading away the capable knee of Chris Webber, compared to the Lakers trading Caron Butler and Chucky Atkins? IF the Kings had also gotten the equilavency of a used toaster as the Lakers did for those two, I guess we might have a discussion, but the three players who came to the Kings are a bit more functional then that. BTW, none are going to start for the Kings this year, but our bench looks fairly good with them on it. Or are they, in your mind, on the same level as McKie, Mihm, and George as well?

Would you be willing to trade any of those three straight up for Thomas, Skinner, or Williamson? Picture any one of those three in a Laker uniform before answering. On not meeting their NBA expectations, Mihm and George both could be nicknamed 'Kwame'. The Kings, on the other hand, seem to always have players who EXCEED expectations while in Sacramento. THAT list includes Webber, Christie, Pollard, Songaila, Bibby, Miller, Jackson...should I go on? If you don't recall of what I speak, look up how any one of those players has done before or after they played in Sacramento.

To discuss this comparison further, we have to expect Mihm, George, and Brown to be better then what they were before Los Angeles. Otherwise, we have a problem.    

Hmmm. I just don't know, westkoast; try as I might, I dont' think Petrie would be much interest in the players you have traded for in the last several years. Oh, I suppose we would have traded for Shaq, but with the deal Buss made with Miami, how could we compete with the mediocre players we could have offered? And you juuuust beat out Petrie in the rush to acquire Brown, and you only had to give up TWO key players from last year to get him. What was Petrie thinking, having to settle for SAR instead.

I can see you have given your comparison between the Kings and the Lakers team improvements much thought as everything else you refer to on this board, westkoast. I have to admit, it DOES make one think about what you are saying.
 

[Skandery]

Joe

I disagree in that none of the players listed above, with the exception of Wilt, demanded the focus of the team to be on them. None of those guys ousted teammates the way Kobe (and Shaq, to be fair) did.

So Olajuwon had nothing to do with the trading of Otis Thorpe (Houston's utility guy for years upon years) for the chance to play with his friend of the University of Houston, Clyde Drexler.  Please.  Every single player I've mentioned was the face of the franchise, the team captain, the number one option, the media darling, the team superstar, etc.  Now having a debate about the wisdom of tying your team to Michael Jordan, Patrick Ewing, or Kobe Bryant is a completely different issue.  But it is just flat wrong to say the Lakers have tied themselves to Kobe like NO OTHER TEAM HAS BEFORE.  

If Stoudemire essentially tries to wrestle control of the Suns away from...well...whoever has it, and that's questionable, then you'd have a real point.

Well then....I guess I have a real point, has anyone else heard rumblings about Amare Stoudemire stating to the media that he wants to revolutionize the center position and become the NBA's first Point-Center.  WTF is he talking about, because I sure want to know what a guy with Nash on his team want to run the offense for???

The larger point I'm trying to make is more and more teams are altering every aspect of their on and off court endeavors to be totally focused around their "star".  When I drove through Orlando, Sprink Break before last there was a 20 story picture of Tracy McGrady.  When I see a team like the Cavs last year, where every single guy just gives it to LeBron and waits.  The Lakers are not the first team to give a single player free reign, nor will they be the last.  The wisdom in that action is what can be debated.

WestKoast

 

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'.

The Lakers have no choice but to have the microscope put on them.  Without mentioning the fact that its Hollywood, or the 14 championships, or the historical franchise.  The Lakers have just recently been the dominant team in the NBA.  Now they're a lottery team.  People are flabbergasted by the action to completely tear the team apart, much like they were with the Bulls.  Now you Laker fans say, "but we didn't tear the team apart, we kept Kobe."  Most people believe that Kobe had a large part to do with the fracture, and that Kobe's talents are, to put it delicately, "relatively common" when compared with Shaq's dominance.  So why would you keep the lesser talent who is perceived to have been the cancer at the heart of the situation.  That's when you Laker fans say, "it was Jerry Buss' final call."  Fine, I agree, it probably was.  The last 8 pages have been nothing more than debate about the wisdom of Jerry's call.  

 

Whoa, Joe!!! Isn't Krause's comment there EXACTLY the point some Laker posters are trying to drive home to us?

JoMaL and Joe, I'm not going to begrudge the Laker fans their sense of confidence.  One can easily say that the Bulls were a one decade sensation, driven by the biggest media sports professional to ever live (now tell me that doesn't sway the whistle calls every now and again, Joe).  But other than the 90s, the Bulls have been largely non-existant.  The Lakers have had success across many decades (as have the Celtics, no matter what Dan thinks) and the likelihood of them regaining their place atop the league is significant.  If the Laker fans are confidant in the decisions of their management, more power to them.  If someone is going to use the "organizations win championships" card, better them than say the Cavs who have never even sniffed a championship.  

[JoMal]

Randy wrote:
QUOTE (Guest_Randy @ Aug 26 2005, 08:56 AM)
I think it's funny though that you expect them to do it overnight!  

You JoMal, replied:
I expect the Lakers to do it overnight? News to me. I expect them to fail to do it at all, or at the very least, have similar success at it as any other mediocre NBA team.

Notice that "I expect them to fail to do it at all" line? Must have slipped you mind huh, but then, you are extremely old. :rolleyes:

I also think that the Hawks, Bobcats, Knicks, Wizards, Clippers, Jazz, Bulls, Raptors, Celtics, among others, will fail to do it at all as well. You see, they are also like the Lakers in their overall current mediocrity. But since we were, or trying to, once again just talk about the Lakers, I suppose you spinning my comment to suit a highly questionable interpretation is to be expected, but you have to understand how pathetic you are starting to sound.

You really are.

[Laker Fan]

Very good post Skander, too bad you are still wrong on the whole Celtics thingy, other than that, concise and reasonable, and really it make the point all of us Laker fans have been trying to make all along, until the Lakers go 10 years mired in the cellar, or even Sixers like or, dare I say it, Kings like mediocrity, while we may not be happy about the current state of affairs at Staples, we have watched this team rise to dominance from mediocrity several times, and I include first round and even second round and out appearances in my definition of mediocrity.

So we have reason to be optimistic that it will happen again, Joe's silly comparison of the Bulls gutting the entire franchise to the Lakers recent less than intelligent moves notwithstanding.

[Skandery]

I also think that the Hawks, Bobcats, Knicks, Wizards, Clippers, Jazz, Bulls, Raptors, Celtics, among others, will fail to do it at all as well.

I don't know if you noticed this JoMaL, but you listed numbers 3 through 5 of last year's EC playoff teams.  Just thought it was funny to point out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I personally would replace the Wizards, Bulls, and Celtics with the Warriors, Hornets, and Magic.    

[JoMal]

I also think that the Hawks, Bobcats, Knicks, Wizards, Clippers, Jazz, Bulls, Raptors, Celtics, among others, will fail to do it at all as well.

I don't know if you noticed this JoMaL, but you listed numbers 3 through 5 of last year's EC playoff teams.  Just thought it was funny to point out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I personally would replace the Wizards, Bulls, and Celtics with the Warriors, Hornets, and Magic.

Yes you could, but even if the Lakers make the playoffs, does that lift the mediocrity label off them? According to the Laker posters, making the playoffs is going to be proof they were right all along, and we don't need them to think that, do we? Listing playoff teams that have little chance of going too far once they get to the post season is about the best the Lakers are looking at.  

[rickortreat]

Well for a while there I thought we were getting at something.  When to bail on a current successful team and move on.

The Bulls are the poster child for an organization that bailed too soon.  Would MJ and Pippen gotten another ring? Hard to say, but getting rid of them put that team into the abyss.  By the way, it looks to me like they are climbing back up the ladder.

The Celtic team that finally failed, failed from old age, not a bad way to go, and with a little luck they may have pulled it off.  The Sixers never recovered from loosing Wilt, it took forever for them to get back to being a team worth even watching.

Some teams never get to the Championship, but the window for the players they do have is considered open.  The 83 Sixers were a team like that, perenial second team to whoever, add Moses Malone to the mix and get a tittle.

The Kings percieved their "window" was closing and after trying a number of different things, finally gave up on CWebb.  What else can they do?  They have to find a way to build with the players they do have in the hopes of getting back to the level where they can compete for a tittle.  Peja and Bibby are very solid players, it's better than starting from scratch, and with SAR, it may turn out to have been a brilliant move.

The Sixers have been tinkering with and rebuilding their roster all along, even before they got to the finals.  The only continuity left is Allen Iverson, about as good a choice as Kobe to build around.  But they've managed to stay in the playoffs while changing Centers, forwards, guards and coaches around AI.  The "window" is open as long as AI is effective, and at least the fans have had something to look forward too, having seen that it COULD be done.  Now they've added Webber, and drafted Igoudala, Korver and Dalmembert.  Maybe not a championship team, but it depends on how well the young players develop.  

The Jazz held on as long as they could with Stockton and Malone, a real shame they couldn't add another decent piece to bring them a title.  Houston tried to rebuild on the fly, adding Barkley and Pippen to Akeem's team, but it was too little, too late.

Point is Buss screwed up by choosing Kobe over Shaq.  Maybe Kobe was easier to like and Shaq made it too hard for Buss to keep him.  But maybe Buss alienated Shaq by favoring Kobe, and the end result was Shaq saying, "I am bigger than this franchise Buss-boy, and I'll proove it by winning the title somewhere else!"

There are very few players worth building around.  I count two, possibly four in the NBA now.  They are (in this order) Shaq, TD, Amare, KG.  It isn't so clear that KG even belongs in that category, but I think it's harder to get players to go to the great white north.

So these other teams in contrast with the Lakers have a clear plan.  The Pistons added a piece and won a Championship.  Miami added Shaq and just missed getting to the finals.  The Kings are trying to keep their team together, by dismantling it piece by piece and stay on top in the meantime.  The Sixers are doing the same thing with an even smaller nucleus.  Dallas keeps trying to do it around Nowitsky. I suppose you could say the Lakers are trying to build around Kobe, but that's a long way down from where they were.  A big price to pay for one owners ego.

 

[Skandery]

Yes you could, but even if the Lakers make the playoffs, does that lift the mediocrity label off them? According to the Laker posters, making the playoffs is going to be proof they were right all along, and we don't need them to think that, do we? Listing playoff teams that have little chance of going too far once they get to the post season is about the best the Lakers are looking at.

No, the Lakers could make the playoffs lose in the first or second round and by Laker Fan Dan's standards, that would be mediocrity.  I'm guessing that for a team to completely take the mediocrity label off themselves, they have to be a Finals team or at least a competitive Conference Finals team.  The odd balls are the teams that win 60 games AND THEN lose in the first or second round (90s Sonics, Mavs, Kings).  Are these teams mediocre??  

Now then, here's what I'm wondering, should the Lakers be a perennial playoff team (ala Portland - 17 yrs, or ala Dallas) from here on out, but never get beyond the second round, how many Laker fans will come back on this board and say, "See, building around Kobe worked!"  I don't think all of them will, but a few might.    

[rickortreat]

That's the other point Skandery.  All the Laker talk about being a better franchise is based on winning Championships.

If all you can do with your team is get to the playoffs and then fail every year, your just another NBA team.  Particularly considering how easy it is to get into the playoffs.

No, for a team to be great they have to contend for the tittle, at least get through to the conference finals, on the way up and then break through into the top two teams. That's what gets fans excited, that's what makes them want to be part of the success of the team.

But if the Lakers get back to the playoffs within a year or two and get forced out in round one, that's still an indication they're on the right track.  The truth is, it's very hard to build a successful team from scratch or with one or two players.  And it takes time to rebuild a team after cleaning house.

But if a team only gets to the semifinals, year after year, in spite of continuing to add players, that's an indication that you're building around the wrong guy, or have the wrong system in place.  Considering that Brown was able to build two teams and get them to the finals (Detroit was almost there when Brown came on) I would say it has a lot more to do with the coach's system and the ability to get the right players to fit that determines one's success in the NBA.

That's another thing.  The Lakers should have gone after Larry Brown instead of Phil.   When did Phil ever actaully build a team from the beggining.  I'd bet anything that Larry would have been happy to go to LA, he even has a house in Malibu.

 

[WayOutWest]

Now then, here's what I'm wondering, should the Lakers be a perennial playoff team (ala Portland - 17 yrs, or ala Dallas) from here on out, but never get beyond the second round, how many Laker fans will come back on this board and say, "See, building around Kobe worked!"  I don't think all of them will, but a few might.

I would consider a perennial playoff team a success, but that is not the standard the Lakers have set for themselves.  Since I'm a fan of the Lakers, I go by their standard of success, NBA Championships.

I enjoyed the pre-Shaq Lakers of the mid-to-late 90's.  NVE, EJ, Peeler, Cambell, Vlade and Co (Ceballos  :puke: ) were a fun team to watch.  One of my fondest memories was the season when NBC was hyping a matchup between the undefeated Bulls and undefeated Knicks.  It was going to be the biggest game of the week on Sunday when the bitter playoff rivals meet for the first time that season and put their undefeated records on the line.  Too bad for NBC that on Thurs the young gun Lakers came into Chicago and ran the Bulls off the court.   What a game NVE and Peeler put on that day.

Still, in the end the Lakers measure success by championships and ONLY championships.  Until Kobe wins another one he won't be able to claim post-Shaq success.

[JoMal]

No, the Lakers could make the playoffs lose in the first or second round and by Laker Fan Dan's standards, that would be mediocrity.  I'm guessing that for a team to completely take the mediocrity label off themselves, they have to be a Finals team or at least a competitive Conference Finals team.  The odd balls are the teams that win 60 games AND THEN lose in the first or second round (90s Sonics, Mavs, Kings).  Are these teams mediocre??  

Now then, here's what I'm wondering, should the Lakers be a perennial playoff team (ala Portland - 17 yrs, or ala Dallas) from here on out, but never get beyond the second round, how many Laker fans will come back on this board and say, "See, building around Kobe worked!"  I don't think all of them will, but a few might.

Yes, Skandery, that is a very good question. Not for most organizations, but certainly for the Lakers and the high expectations they and their fans appear to have.

But would they actually come out and claim building around Kobe is proven to be successful if they never make it out of the second round with him? I have to doubt that.

[msc]

No, the Lakers could make the playoffs lose in the first or second round and by Laker Fan Dan's standards, that would be mediocrity.  I'm guessing that for a team to completely take the mediocrity label off themselves, they have to be a Finals team or at least a competitive Conference Finals team.  The odd balls are the teams that win 60 games AND THEN lose in the first or second round (90s Sonics, Mavs, Kings).  Are these teams mediocre?? 

Now then, here's what I'm wondering, should the Lakers be a perennial playoff team (ala Portland - 17 yrs, or ala Dallas) from here on out, but never get beyond the second round, how many Laker fans will come back on this board and say, "See, building around Kobe worked!"  I don't think all of them will, but a few might.

Yes, Skandery, that is a very good question. Not for most organizations, but certainly for the Lakers and the high expectations they and their fans appear to have.

But would they actually come out and claim building around Kobe is proven to be successful if they never make it out of the second round with him? I have to doubt that.

I wouldn't.  
 

[westkoast]

I also think that the Hawks, Bobcats, Knicks, Wizards, Clippers, Jazz, Bulls, Raptors, Celtics, among others, will fail to do it at all as well.

I don't know if you noticed this JoMaL, but you listed numbers 3 through 5 of last year's EC playoff teams.  Just thought it was funny to point out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I personally would replace the Wizards, Bulls, and Celtics with the Warriors, Hornets, and Magic.

Yes you could, but even if the Lakers make the playoffs, does that lift the mediocrity label off them? According to the Laker posters, making the playoffs is going to be proof they were right all along, and we don't need them to think that, do we? Listing playoff teams that have little chance of going too far once they get to the post season is about the best the Lakers are looking at.

If your fine with it I think we will be fine with it.    Thank you for proving what I was speaking on above.  No need for me to respond to your paragraph.  If the Lakers make the playoffs then you are wrong and we wouldnt want that would we JoMaL?  They are suppose to stay a bottom feeder so you can feel better about your own team right?

Skander I agree that some in LALA land believe a ring is the only answer.  That is how it is for some people out here....its all or nothing.  You cannot have anything inbetween.  You cant knock those people too bad (although I enjoy it) because they are use to the team being at the top of the pack.  Making the playoffs is important to every team except the Spurs, Lakers, Pistons, and Miami at this point.  They need to win it all.  Funny thing is only 3 of those teams are top tier teams.  

Building around Kobe isnt a problem if they play solid during the regular season and get deep in the playoffs.  If they dont win a ring I wouldnt call it a failed expirement.  Only if they continue to play like they did last year.  Were John Stockton and Karl Malone failures because they never won it all?  Not at all.  They kept the Jazz a good team forever.  As long as the team is competitive then its alllllll gooooooood.