Aaron McKie signs with the Lakers . . .

[Skandery]

Laker Fan:

'90's = 0 Titles, 0 appearances
'00's = 0 Titles, 0 appearances (so far)

Skandery:

Oh and before anyone says where have they been the last decade and a half, it took two *DEATHS* to put a stop to their winning ways.

I knew someone would ignore this line... :rolleyes:


 

[Joe Vancil]

Ya Shaq had an ego when he came. That didnt change BUT other things did. One being his motivation.

No argument from me that Shaq was lazy.

Shaq also wasnt 4 years hurt when the Lakers aquired him.

Correct;  he was *1* year hurt, missing more games in that season than in any other.  In fact, between his last year in Orlando and his first year in LA, he was injured more often than he was in his last *6* seasons in LA, combined.  You're telling me Shaq is more often injured NOW than THEN?  The stats don't back you up.

He also wasnt getting to his mid-30s either.

How old was Chamberlain, when you acquired him?  Does anyone think *THAT* was a mistake?  Does anyone think, "We should have traded Chamberlain, before he got too old?"  Does anyone think, "We should have dumped Abdul-Jabbar before he retired?"  NO.  When you have a supremely talented player, YOU KEEP HIM.  Why was it that Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar were kept, when they were FAR more obviously on their last legs than Shaq, but O'Neal was let go?

Their goal was to rebuild with youth. Shaq is not considered a younger player.

So, seeing how well it's worked for Chicago, they tried *THAT* disaster of a model?  

Why "rebuild" when you're *ALREADY* a championship-caliber team?  "We don't want to win JUST YET..."?  You can't tell me that you think if the Lakers of two years ago had stayed together this last year, that you think they wouldn't have figured prominently in the Finals picture, can you?  *I* think that was a championship caliber team...

You cant admit that there is alot of other shit Shaq did that warranted him being moved.

Allen Iverson skips practices, and he doesn't get moved.  Ron Artest essentially destroys his team's season getting into a stupid altercation, and he doesn't get moved.  Rasheed Wallace throws temper tantrums for years in Portland, and was only moved midway through the season before this past one.  Kobe Bryant is involved in a sex scandal, and he doesn't get moved.  

The players who I can think of who got moved JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR BEHAVIOR on short notice include Latrell Sprewell for choking his coach, and that's about it.  And it's not like the Warriors were in the playoff hunt, much less the championship hunt, when management said, "Enough!" with Sprewell.

When you get down to it, Shaq did a *LOT* of things that would make an owner, GM, or coach *WANT* to move him.  And there's no doubt that both he and Kobe tarnished the club image of the Lakers, hardware notwithstanding.  But there's a difference in making an owner, GM, or coach *WANT* to move you, and actually sinking to the level of making it happen.  Shaq's behavior, work ethic, and antics were BAD - but I don't know that they were BAD ENOUGH to justify dumping him...and *DEFINITELY* not for as little as the Lakers got back.

If Kobe was the main reason PJ left then why is Phil Jackson back? If he hated Kobe that much and didnt think he was the least bit coachable why is he currently getting ready for the pre-season??

In my opinion, Jackson is just as egotistical and arrogant as Shaq and Kobe.  His coming back isn't to "patch things up with Kobe," but to be the top dog, saying, "*YOU* are nothing without *ME*" to Bryant.  If Bryant had the team contending for the playoffs this past year, Jackson wouldn't have come back.  But because Bryant stumbled, Jackson is moving in for the kill.

And why bring back Jackson?  Wasn't he part of the problem, too?  Didn't I hear Laker fans here say he didn't do enough active coaching, and just sat watching too often?  Why not go after a Larry Brown...or a Flip Saunders...or a Nate McMillan...or even a Dwane Casey?  Why is Jackson good enough NOW, but not good enough a year ago?  Why is he worth the money NOW?

The fact is that now that Kobe's deal is inked, if the Lakers could trade Brian Grant, Lamar Odom, and Caron Butler for Shaquille O'Neal back, they'd do it...as would *ANY* team.

 

[msc]

Skandery:

Oh and before anyone says where have they been the last decade and a half, it took two *DEATHS* to put a stop to their winning ways.

I knew someone would ignore this line... :rolleyes:

Well, the Lakers best point guard and arguably the greatest player to ever lace up his Converse Weapons had to retire b/c he contracted HIV.  The Lakers re-built after that.  What's your point?  

As unfortunate as those deaths are, Boston's two-decade-long woes have more to do with horrible management than anything else.  Sometimes I think Ainge is TRYING to help the other teams in the league ... especially his own conference  :drunk:
 
 

[Joe Vancil]

That is an appearance (minimum of 3 appearances actually) in EVERY DECADE, and only one less championship that the the vaunted Celtics, (are they still in the NBA?)

Yes, the Celtics are still in the NBA.  As for where they've been, they've been busy learning the lesson that teams don't win championships by building around supremely talented, late-lottery, shot-hogging 2-guards that aren't the best at listening to their coach.

Hey...you asked.
 

[WayOutWest]

Skandery:

Oh and before anyone says where have they been the last decade and a half, it took two *DEATHS* to put a stop to their winning ways.

I knew someone would ignore this line... :rolleyes:

Well, the Lakers best point guard and arguably the greatest player to ever lace up his Converse Weapons had to retire b/c he contracted HIV.  The Lakers re-built after that.  What's your point?  

As unfortunate as those deaths are, Boston's two-decade-long woes have more to do with horrible management than anything else.  Sometimes I think Ainge is TRYING to help the other teams in the league ... especially his own conference  :drunk:

Dam! I should check in more often.

Thunder stealer!

 

[WayOutWest]

Well, yeah the Lakers are worse off than the Sixers now.  At least the Sixers will make the playoffs next year, and are on the rise again after loosing to the Lakers.  The Lakers will most likely MISS the playoffs again next year.

But all during the time the Sixers haven't been a good team, they've been an entertaining team.  As a fan, I'm a realist. They aren't an elite team, and their chances this year to win it all look pretty slim.

But they have a good group of young players, and now should be able to rebound with everyone, thanks to the addition of Hunter.  Igoudala and Korver should continue to get better, and Iverson is the best point in the league.  That's about all a fan can hope for, unless they have Shaq or TD on their squad.  At least we didn't trade away our critical stud player!

Keep telling yourself that Ricko, you may start to believe that loser franchise BS.

[Laker Fan]

"If we were talking about the Spurs or the Sixers or the Heat or the Kings, then by all means let's rant and rave about the lack of success those programs have had.

But to leap into a parrallel discussion about how many championships the Lakers have won compared to Utah......"

Clue me in here JoMal, are suggesting the Jazz in terms of success should not even be mentioned in the same breath as the other teams I mentioned? Or are you suggesting the Jazz have been too successful to be mentioned in the same breath as the other also rans? Because it seems to me, the only 2 teams on this list mentioned here that have proven unable to make it to the Finals are the Kings and the Heat, maybe they should just be dropped form the discussion altogether when it comes to discussing successful franchises. If the Jazz belong in the upper echelon of successful teams in your mind, no wonder the Kings are content with "Pacific Division Champion" banners.

If I misread your nebulous posting,please enlighten me.
 

[rickortreat]

WOW, just what is it about my post that you found in error?

It's very clear that the two best franchises by far are the Lakers and Celtics.  The Sixers have only won 2 titles, one with Chamberlain and probably the best team ever, and a very, very good team that finally won one in 83.  There really isn't any comparison with the Celts the Lakers or the Bulls on that score.

But things change, the architect of the Lakers dynasty is gone,  not coincidentally the Celtics started their slide once Red Auerbach got too old to run the show.

Since Red has gone the Celtics have been unable to do much of anything, certainly no real shot at a title.  Don't feel sorry for Beantown fans though, as the wins by the Pats and the Sox make Boston the best sports town in the nation right now.

And what happened to Chicago after the Jordan era? Phew! Stinko!

But the point is, the things that made the Lakers successful are gone, and while you may hope they will return to their glory days, they could follow Boston down into the abyss of basketball mediocrity.

At least in Philly we have a football team that wins and is by far the most entertaining team ever, and we even have a baseball team that is in contention (will miracle's ever cease?)  The Sixers are very unlikely to do anything against Miami, so we'll have to settle for being second or third or even worse.  And that's more than enough for a sports fan, and compared with most towns, really pretty good.

One thing about winning very few titles is that when you do win, it feels that much better.  Just ask a Sox fan about that.  Philly is one of those places that seems snakebit, every once in a great while we get a team that is really worth following.  The Eagles should be back in the Supe this year, and LA, err they don't even have a football team anymore do they?

 

[westkoast]

How quick we forget Joe...

"Correct; he was *1* year hurt, missing more games in that season than in any other. In fact, between his last year in Orlando and his first year in LA, he was injured more often than he was in his last *6* seasons in LA, combined. You're telling me Shaq is more often injured NOW than THEN? The stats don't back you up."

Shaq was hurt for 4 solid seasons where the hell were you?  How are you basing his injuries soley based on the amount of games he did or did not play?  Am I the only person who remembers his constant pain he played thru and the problematic knee/leg/toe injuries he had year in and year out?  Your kidding right?  He was more beat up and injured in LA than Orlando.  I dont remember him having surgery in Orlando.  I also dont remember him going to specialists each week to treat injuries.

"How old was Chamberlain, when you acquired him? Does anyone think *THAT* was a mistake? Does anyone think, "We should have traded Chamberlain, before he got too old?" Does anyone think, "We should have dumped Abdul-Jabbar before he retired?" NO. When you have a supremely talented player, YOU KEEP HIM. Why was it that Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar were kept, when they were FAR more obviously on their last legs than Shaq, but O'Neal was let go?"

I know how you older guys love to stay in the past but this is a much different, more business oriented game.   Now correct me if I am wrong but there was no high taxing on payroll then and I dont believe either of these guys were demanding to make 30 million a year.  Even by money standards at the time they werent asking for a crazy amount of money.  Not to mention Kareem did not insult Jerry Buss in front of 20k and the rest of the sports world.  Nor did he take shots at Jerry West saying hes the reason why good players wanted to come to LA (not to defend Mitch cuz I dont like him but you dont air it out in the media).

Even Shaq knew his 30 million a year paycheck was asking too much and that is why he agreed to the recent deal with the Heat.

"So, seeing how well it's worked for Chicago, they tried *THAT* disaster of a model?

Why "rebuild" when you're *ALREADY* a championship-caliber team? "We don't want to win JUST YET..."? You can't tell me that you think if the Lakers of two years ago had stayed together this last year, that you think they wouldn't have figured prominently in the Finals picture, can you? *I* think that was a championship caliber team..."

Certainly its worked for other teams has it not?  How many teams have went into rebuilding stages and brought on a bunch of old players?   Suns went pretty young when they decided to rebuild here recently and it looks like they have quite a team (except I believe Nash is in his 30s)

We can assume all we want Joe but at the end of the day even *if* that team came back the motivation of Shaq would be the determining factor.  Its hard for anyone to give him the benefit of the doubt when each year we were told 'hes in better shape he looks great' by the LA media and he comes in just the opposite.  Only when his ego got bruised did it motivate him to train hard.  What would have motivated him in LA?  It obviously wasnt wanting to win the championship or else the year after the Spurs beat us he would have came into camp like he did for Miami right?

"Shaq's behavior, work ethic, and antics were BAD - but I don't know that they were BAD ENOUGH to justify dumping him...and *DEFINITELY* not for as little as the Lakers got back."

And I agree they got a combo meal of crap for him.  Personally I rather the Lakers got a double double from in n out for him.  The behavior/attitude isnt so much the problem as his work ethic and motivation.  Those are important factors when you are starting to age.  Especially when it would take longer and longer to play his way into shape.  For a couple years it took him almost 30 games to get into decent playing shape.  Plus when your athletic ability starts to diminish because of abuse you need to be a little bit more motivated to work at things.  Wouldnt you agree?

"Didn't I hear Laker fans here say he didn't do enough active coaching, and just sat watching too often? Why not go after a Larry Brown...or a Flip Saunders...or a Nate McMillan...or even a Dwane Casey? Why is Jackson good enough NOW, but not good enough a year ago? Why is he worth the money NOW?"

Why bring him up now?  Because it pertains to what we are speaking about...which is reasons for Shaq leaving.  That was a major one and that came from Shaq's mouth.

Can you please not mistake fanhome Laker fans to us please?  We didnt say he didnt do enough active coaching....HE SAID THAT.  Thats what was being commented on.  Which of us said that Phil Jackson wasnt a good enough coach to coach the Lakers anymore?  I dont think there was a Laker fan on this board HAPPY to see him go.  As for the money question, should you be asking us or Jerry Buss?  Cuz Jerry Buss was the one who decided he wasnt worth the money, not us Laker fans.

One thing you all forget or dont seem to know first hand is that Jerry Buss himself has an ego.  Quite a large one from what people have said who know/met him.  Now we all know what men with egos and power do when someone makes a fool out of them right?  They flex that power to show who has the biggest sack right?   No one thinks this has anything to do with the situation?

[Skandery]

WK,

Certainly its worked for other teams has it not? How many teams have went into rebuilding stages and brought on a bunch of old players? Suns went pretty young when they decided to rebuild here recently and it looks like they have quite a team (except I believe Nash is in his 30s)

The Suns had a so-called "youth" movement the year before with Stoudemire, Johnson, Marbury, Voskuhl, and what did that net them.  29 wins I do believe.  Notice how they had to bring IN a "quality veteran", one who was 30 years old in fact, to finally get things clicking.  The Lakers did the opposite, they told the "quality veteran" (which by the way I'd call Shaq a dominant veteran) to go take a hike.  

Miami has welcomed that dominant veteran and they're a Finals contender year in and year out, now.  And every veteran free agent in the league wants to play for them.  Let's see Michael Finley, Antoine Walker, (insert All-Star here), who do they want to play for, oh that's right Miami, NOT the Lakers.  I'm wondering if Shaq was still with the Lakers, whether they'd be one of the teams bandied about by the journalist on possible Michael Finley destinations.

Seattle brought in a quality veteran Detlef Schrempf before they went on their 60 plus wins every year run in the 90s.  

Houston brought in a quality veteran Clyde Drexler to nab their second title.  

In fact come to think of it, how many "youth" movements have sniffed playoff success.  

Boston - NOPE
Toronto - NOPE
Chicago - NOPE
Atlanta  - NOPE
Detroit  - Maybe - but even they had to bring Rasheed to make that serious run.

Can anyone think of a "youth" movement that has worked??.....finally thought of one.....Boston trades an all-star and two quality starters for an athletic rookie the St. Louis Hawks drafted by the name of Bill Russell.  The Hawks went on to win the championship that year.  Boston got themselves a dynasty.  

Because it pertains to what we are speaking about...which is reasons for Shaq leaving. 

As I've stated before on this board, I believe the reason Shaq left was pure and simple.  The Lakers forced Phil Jackson OUT!  Why did they force Phil Jackson out??  Because Kobe didn't like him and threatened to sign with another team.  The Lakers decided that Kobe was more important than retaining their best player and their coach.  Why is Phil Jackson back.........now is when I'll agree with you koast....I believe Buss "flexed his muscles" and went to Kobe and said "We've tried it your way, now we're bringin' back our coach to set us right."  Had Buss flexed those muscles last year, you guys would still be rooting for a championship calibre team.    
     

[Joe Vancil]

Now we all know what men with egos and power do when someone makes a fool out of them right? They flex that power to show who has the biggest sack right? No one thinks this has anything to do with the situation?

Why does this apply to Buss, but not to Kobe?

When Kobe was a free agent - an UNRESTRICTED free agent - last year, WHO had the upper hand - Buss or Kobe?

You see, I agree that this is entirely about power and ego.  But I think it's all more about the power and ego of Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal, and Phil Jackson than it is about the power and ego of Jerry Buss.  The fact is that of the three, although Buss may have the most money and obviously as the final say, his ego is the LEAST of the factors, because Buss's ego - unlike the egoes of others in the equation - is tied directly to WINNING.  That's *WHY* the Lakers are the premier organization in the NBA.

All the things you say about Shaq's motivation and shoddy work ethic hurting the team, I AGREE WITH.  And yes, I do believe that it would have been the determining factor as to how the Lakers would have done had he been kept.  And that's why Shaq needs a player like a Kobe Bryant or a Dwyane Wade around - to carry the team until Shaq is ready to do "his part."  And with Payton and Malone - who'd have come back had the team been kept intact, Bryant had help in doing that.

Los Angeles was a Karl Malone injury - the one during the season, not the playoff one - away from a title.  When Malone went down in the season, the chemistry was damaged, and it hadn't recovered by the time the playoffs rolled around.  Complacency had set in while Malone was out.  Had LA kept Malone, Payton, and Shaq - plus either Bryant or what they could get for him in a sign-and-trade, they were poised for a title run.

As it was, they weren't even poised for a playoff run.

For all of this talk of the Lakers "rebuilding," I think it's garbage.  WHY REBUILD AT ALL, WHEN YOU'RE RIGHT THERE AT THE TOP?  Oh, bring along some youngsters, sure...and hold on to your young talent.  But you don't send three Hall-Of-Famers packing!  Granted, Malone had very little left, and there's questions about Payton.  But in my estimation, along with Shaq and Bryant (or what you could get for him in a sign-and-trade), that's still a title threat *TODAY*.  That's potentially TWO MORE TITLES, and you'd still have Bryant or what you could get in a sign-and-trade.

When I look at this past year's San An team that won the championship, in my evaluation, they're not as good as the San An team the year before.  Brent Barry never fit in well.  Hedo Turkoglu looked really good in San An.  And while Beno Udrih looked really good, how many people consider Beno Udrih a "huge advantage"?  The San An team that lost to the 2004 Lakers may very well have been a better team than the San An team of last year.  And there's no doubt that the Detroit team of 2004 was better than this past year's Detroit team.

The opportunity was there for Los Angeles - if they could have kept their core team together.  Why waste that opportunity, just to "rebuild"?

"Rebuilding," these days, means INTENTIONALLY LOSING.  And Los Angeles has *NEVER* done that until now.  *NEVER*.  When Chamberlain retired, the Lakers signed Abdul-Jabbar, and worked deals until they got Magic.  And before they got Magic, the Lakers were *STILL* a good team.  They weren't a team to be walked on.  When Kareem retired, the Lakers were still at the top - going back to the Finals in 1991.  When Magic came down with HIV, sure, the Lakers stumbled...all the way to missing the playoffs what - ONCE - THREE YEARS AFTER MAGIC WAS GONE?  The Lakers, with their superstar going down, "crippled" along through a single season of missing the playoffs.  Yet, now, Laker fans are being told, "No, we're waiting until the 2006 or 2007 season to make our splash in free agency" when they ALREADY had a winning team?  WHY?  If you're going to make your big splash in free agency in 2006 or 2007, why not simply run with another year or two of Payton, Malone, O'Neal, and Bryant?

Why was that not possible?  Because the owner had too big of an ego to WIN?  I don't buy that for a minute.

 

[westkoast]

I guess none of the younger guys had anything to do with the rebuilding.  It was strickly Steve Nash right?  :rolleyes:  Amare comming into his own surely didnt make a difference.  Neither did JJ's outside shooting.   Skan, can you tell me what teams that went thru rebuilding processes, not changing lineups, that pulled in players that were older?  You do not build for the future with older players.  As good as Shaq is staying with him is a 3 year future max.  I think the Lakers are looking 5 to 7 years out.

As for what you think about Buss and PJ....You may be right you may be wrong.  Buss has always stated he liked the faster, more uptempo style of basketball.  He also believed that the triangle was not getting the job done because of two years of failure (in his eyes).  He wanted to see more exciting, up tempo games which is why he 1) decided not to go with PJ and had to look like an ahole by rehiring him and 2) went for younger more athletic players who can run.  Buss said this himself during a halftime interview last year.  So this is what he said himself not what I think happend.

And again people jesus f'in christ...The Lakers with just Shaq would not be a finals caliber team.  The Miami Heat are not a finals caliber team because of just Shaq, it is because of the inside-out punch of him and Wade.  Who would be the outside threat that would lighten up the load on Shaq if he was on the Lakers this past year???  Why does this guy constantly get discredited???  Wade is the reason they made it to the ECF, not Shaq!  People seem to forget that and before the talk is brought up that Shaq makes Wade sooo much better....why did he get a Shaq-less Miami Heat deep in the 2nd round against one of the better teams in the league if that was the case?

[Joe Vancil]

Can anyone think of a "youth" movement that has worked??.....finally thought of one.....Boston trades an all-star and two quality starters for an athletic rookie the St. Louis Hawks drafted by the name of Bill Russell. The Hawks went on to win the championship that year. Boston got themselves a dynasty.

Skander,

Oh, but wait!  In doing so, Boston KEPT BOTH of their superstars - Sharman and Cousy.  Not exactly what I'd call a "youth movement."

You've hit on my point exactly.  "Youth movement" or "rebuilding" is nothing but PR spin on saying, "We intend on losing games, and have come up with this clever way to get you to think that losing is a good thing."

Winning and losing are traditions that build upon themselves.  And too often, the most talented players get tired of playing for a losing team, and say, "Get me the f*** out of here!  I'd rather play for a winner!"  Oh, and not a winner in 2 or 3 years...a winner NOW.

 

[Joe Vancil]

As good as Shaq is staying with him is a 3 year future max. I think the Lakers are looking 5 to 7 years out.

So why not stay with Shaq for 3 years, and then look 2 to 4 years out?  Saves on 3 years of suffering.

And again people jesus f'in christ...The Lakers with just Shaq would not be a finals caliber team. The Miami Heat are not a finals caliber team because of just Shaq, it is because of the inside-out punch of him and Wade. Who would be the outside threat that would lighten up the load on Shaq if he was on the Lakers this past year??? Why does this guy constantly get discredited??? Wade is the reason they made it to the ECF, not Shaq! People seem to forget that and before the talk is brought up that Shaq makes Wade sooo much better....why did he get a Shaq-less Miami Heat deep in the 2nd round against one of the better teams in the league if that was the case?

OH...hold on...are you saying that if Shaq had STAYED, KOBE WOULD HAVE LEFT?  Are you admitting what I claimed earlier - that Kobe couldn't play with Shaq any longer?

As for Wade, I've never said that Shaq makes Wade better.  I was one of the folks congratulating HC on getting Wade, saying he was going to be AWESOME.  I said Wade's transition to the point was going to be easy, and Miami was going to do EXTREMELY WELL.  (HC thought I was crazy.)

Wade led a Shaq-less Miami Heat deep into the second round because Wade is a talented player, who could win with Caron Butler, Brian Grant, and Lamar Odom or with Shaquille O'Neal.  I'm not discrediting Wade at all.  In fact, if I'm discrediting ANYONE, it's Kobe Bryant.  Wade won with those guys.  Bryant lost with them.  Wade was able to be a good teammate to ALL of them.  Kobe Bryant wasn't.

Shaq's probably put on 10 pounds every off-season in ego alone.  But the reason he's gone is that if he had stayed, the Lakers were afraid that Bryant wouldn't.  Fear of losing Bryant necessitated the trade of O'Neal.

Makes you wonder how all of these Laker fans would have reacted if, in, say, 1984, everyone was afraid Magic wouldn't re-sign unless the team dumped Abdul-Jabbar.

Put some of the blame where it belongs - on Bryant's inability to defer to O'Neal.
 

[JoMal]

If the Lakers wanted to start from scratch again, why, may I ask, didn't they play out the squad they already had to its end and then start over? It appears they are in exactly the same position either way, but would have maybe been competitive enough for several more years to challenge for additional championships.  The reason appears to be with Shaq simply forcing the Lakers to break them up after Jackson left. O'Neal clearly did not see any point playing any further with Bryant and whomever the team brought in to coach them.

The salary demands were just Shaq's way of achieving that, as you have repeatedly stated. This means that the rest of your assertions – that the Lakers "planned" this youth movement all along and are now positioning themselves to make significant runs at free agents in 2007 – came about out of necessity and not in a board room somewhere in Staples.

Let me explain something to you that apparently you missed. EVERY team in the NBA that has hit mediocrity plans to dump salary so they can acquire free agents, and since they tend to have mid-first round draft choices, to work out young aspiring NBA players to see who they managed to draft who might eventually help the team, as players in the mid-first round tend to be question marks for about three years. What on earth would make Laker fans so arrogant as to think they are the only ones who root for a team who consider rebuilding using this formula when things get average on the court?

Of course!!!!! The historically brilliant planners and designers of those Laker teams are naturally expected – by you – to continue this trend. Why? The key orchestraters of those teams are either in Memphis or building movie theaters in Watts. The highly touted coach is very highly touted indeed – for producing winners out of veteran teams – teams that had NBA legends named Michael and Shaq to lead them on the court – players who actually supported him and his coaching style. When was the last time he coached a superstar who thought he knew more about basketball then him? Or worse!!!!! What if one of those young players you acquire actually (I shudder to consider this) develops into an actual superstar himself??? Do we get a repeat of the Kobe/Shaq feud??? After all, THAT scenario is also based on "Laker" tradition, is it not?

Besides this 'tradition' of which you speak, that all the LA Lakers have to do in the year 2007 is flash the rings, the 'tradition', and then just sit back as the best free agents flock to Southern California to sign on for this guarantee of glory, what really separates Los Angeles from any other competing team across the country in this day and age of, as westkoast stated, …"a much different, more business oriented game"?

If the Lakers have any clear cut advantage over other NBA teams competing for the same pool of players, I think you might want to consider non-basketball related possibilities instead of Laker 'tradition', because that and a plane ticket will get you to Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, or San Antonio just as easily.

And no, one-stump Laker brain freezers, it won't get you to Sacramento. I know that won't stop you from saying it anyway because clearly none of you Laker posters are original enough thinkers to come up with an innovative thought unless an Arco cattle prod zaps your ingrown cowbells into dropping.