Aaron McKie signs with the Lakers . . .

[Guest_Randy]

Yes, I think that sums it up. Many of us outsiders are of the opinion that the Lakers organization is floundering.

Wow, I'm amazed and astounded -- as I have said before, there ARE higher expectations for the Lakers organization from it's fans and city than any other NBA team but I'm even MORE astounded by the expectations of those on this board who AREN'T Laker fans.  Most Laker fans EXPECT it to take a few years to rebuild the team -- but you non-Laker fans expect them to turn the team around in ONE year!!!

I love that Rick -- the Lakers organization is floundering -- this based on ONE year away from having been to the NBA finals.  If that's the criteria for floundering -- then how long have the Sixers been floundering?  How long have the Kings been floundering?  

You crack me!   :rofl:  :rofl:  

[Joe Vancil]

Randy,

I agree that there are expectations that are different for the Lakers than there are for many other franchises.  The Lakers are a historical franchise that has done well for quite some time, and generally done it with a sense of style and class.  At the start of the 2003-4 season, there was no doubt that the Laker franchise was the best franchise in basketball.

But I agree with Rick's opinion that the Laker organization is floundering...and not JUST based on one year away from having been to the NBA Finals.  However, if I were to offer up the 1999 Chicago Bulls, I think even you would agree that a trip to the Finals in the previous year means very little when you overhaul your team, no?

The reason I think the Lakers organization is floundering deals with the difference in the way they've treated Kobe Bryant versus the way they've treated past superstars.  The Lakers also shipped out Shaq.  Folks like Kareem and Chamberlain never got shipped out...they retired as Lakers.  Classy organizations don't forget their heroes - and they sure don't ship them out when they've got a couple seasons left in them.

Bryant has been spoiled to the extent that only the truly worst organizations spoil their players.  Bryant now believes he's bigger than the Laker franchise, given the way they've treated him.  Well, I don't know about you, but I always understood clearly that the Laker franchise was bigger than Elgin Baylor, bigger than Wilt Chamberlain, bigger than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, bigger than Magic Johnson, bigger than James Worthy...even bigger than Jerry West.  But it ISN'T bigger than Kobe Bryant.  Kobe Bryant *IS* the franchise.

Shaq should have been kept, and Bryant should have been resigned.  The Lakers do this, and they're one of the top teams in basketball.  Malone would have been back.  Payton would have been back.  But instead, Shaq is shipped off, and Bryant is essentially handed the keys to the kingdom.

You're right;  there *IS* a different standard applied to the TOP organizations.  There's a difference in working at the nicest restaurant in town versus working at the local McDonald's.  And just so it's said, Bryant knows that just as well as you and I know it;  he had no intention of working for McDonald's (Sterling) *REGARDLESS* of what he was saying.

But the fine restaurant can't be mismanaged, or before long, the jobs there are just as bad as the one's at McDonald's.  And right now, the Lakers are being mismanaged.

No, not the Andrew Bynum pick.  That's a high risk/high reward pick, but that's the kind of move that makes sense for the Lakers, given the situation they're in.  Same thing with the Kwame Brown signing.

The question is "Why are the Lakers in this position in the first place?"

Part of it is because the organization never did anything about the O'Neal/Bryant feud.  Were either of these guys ever suspended for conduct detrimental to the team?  Were they ever fined by the team?  No.  They were treated as if they were sitting in the front row seats at a Lakers' game, rather than like they were part of the Lakers' team.

Part of it is because of bringing Phil Jackson on board in the first place.  When Riley left, Mike Dunleavy took the Lakers to the finals.  MIKE DUNLEAVY!  The idea that "we have to have the biggest name coach" hurt the team - as did the choice to elevate Kurt Rambis rather than longtime assistant LARRY DREW when Del Harris was fired - just as it did when it gave Magic Johnson - the big name - the coaching job rather than Michael Cooper - who had earned it.  After all - who was Pat Riley before he became the Laker coach?  A bench player for a championship team, and an assistant coach.  But, no - the Lakers have a "special" need, and therefore need Phil Jackson.  What would the Lakers have been had they tried to go after Lenny Wilkens or Jack Ramsey when Jack McKinney went down...or when Paul Westhead was fired?  So much for Pat Riley.  Jerry West is in Memphis, and Chick Hearn passed away.  Top to bottom, the organization has consistently LOST the class that defined it.

And finally, the Lakers bought into this "we're going to wait and rebuild in a few years" model.  Winning and losing are traditions that feed on themselves.  Teams that are okay with fielding losers end up like the Clippers...maybe next year they'll be decent.  It's a loser's mentality, and has no place in a top-notch organization.  A top-notch organization may understand that it's going to have its bad season here and there, but is going to do what it takes - *NOW* - to field a winner - *NOW*.

I admit that the changes to free agency have changed the rules of the game.  If anything, these changes hurt organizations like the Lakers.  But there's not going to be a Yao Ming or Amare Stoudemire or LeBron James signing in a few years, because, since they are restricted free agents, their teams are going to lock them up.  You might get a Joe Johnson or a Lamar Odom - like Atlanta and Miami did, but you're not going to get the elite-level folks, because unlike Phoenix and the Clippers, Houston, Phoenix, and Cleveland will MATCH the offers for Ming, Stoudemire, and James.  Heck, they're going to offer them max deals.

Los Angeles's lone chance for real improvement comes on getting lucky in the lottery and having some draft picks develop.  Maybe Los Angeles lucks into Oden or the like.  Maybe Bynum develops.  But that's what it's going to take.

LA should look at the situation that Orlando is in, or that Chicago was in.  The teams lost so much that folks like McGrady and Brand simply said, "I don't want to wait;  I want out!"  That's a possibility with Bryant in the future.  And if that happens, keeping Bryant at the expense of Shaq will be exposed as misguided.

 

[JoMal]

I find it funny that you are talking ish JoMaL...your Kings arent in any better shape.  At all.

What???

Compared to the Lakers???


 :lol:  :lol:  

[JoMal]

Thanks fellas, this has been entertaining reading to this guy procrastinating at the office on a Friday afternoon.  I'm not sure who's wasted more of their time ... Randy and JoMal for chasing their tails over 6 pages of posts ... or me for actually reading through all of them!  I love it.  Is it Nov 1 yet?  Go Kwame Brown!!  That's it Chris Mihm, box out, baby!  Juuuuuuuu - maine Jooooooonesss ... swish!  (man, I love that rainbow arc he puts on his shot).

I love this game ... pass me the Laker Kool-Aid  :drunk:


 

I'd like to pause in mid-rant here to praise msc for his very insightful post, though I have to wonder how he thinks the duration of his post does not measure the same as either Randy's or mine in wasting time.

To paraphrase Robert Frost, pre-season Laker fan optimism makes up in height what it lacks in length.  

[JoMal]

Wade is constantly overlooked in these Shaq/Kobe/Miami/Lakers debates.  Wade last year did loads and loads of work yet people constantly talk about how Shaq made the Heat grab a ECF apperance.  Shaq had three times as much help as Kobe did last year.

That is a very true statement, westkoast, but the impression is that Wade welcomed the supporting cast he had, in particular Shaq, while Kobe seemed to prefer lesser lights shining around him so their glare would not interfere with his own spotlight.

[WayOutWest]

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.
 

You bring up an interesting point.

Make no mistake Jomal, Buss made the call.  It's very possible that Kobe made his feelings known about leaving if Shaq stayed, but in the end Buss made the call, he's always made the final call.  I can remember only one time when Buss was challanged and relented, West threatened to quit if Buss followed thru on his handshake deal with Dallas owner to swap Worthy for Magic's buddy Aguire.

But the point you bring up about Shaq forcing the break up reminded me about some thoughts I had a few days after Shaq was traded.  Plain and simple, Shaq didn't see it comming.  

All the reasons everyone brings up about why the Lakers should have picked Shaq over Kobe are valid and reasonable, Shaq and his "peeps" probably followed the same rational.  There is no way anyone would pick Kobe to build around over Shaq.  In Kobe you have a player that is not as rare as a Shaq.  Robertson, Baylor, Dr J, Jordan, T-Mac and Wade all have similar qualities as Kobe, none are as good as Kobe except Jordan and Robertson, who were better but they are very similar.  You have had those types of players in every era but you'd have to go back to Wilt in order to discuss Shaq-like dominance.  That's almost a 30 year gap between players like Shaq where is very little or no gap between players like Kobe.  Of course Shaq is in the drivers seat, it's always been his team, players have always bowed down to Shaq or been traded if they didn't fall in line.  That's been the history to date.

Unfortunately for Shaq and his camp Jerry Buss is the MAN.  Not Shaq, not Kobe and not Phil Jackson.  Buss clearly made the decision that Kobe was his guy, just like he did with Magic when he had to chose between his budding star and championship coach.  I think Shaq's biggest mistake was calling out and publicly embarrising Jerry Buss durring training camp in Hawaii.  You just don't do that to Jerry Buss, that IMO was the biggest nail in Shaq's Laker career coffin.  

Joe mentioned it earlier and you brought it up again, the Lakers should have just rode the Shaq train out one more year while still signing Kobe at LEAST, at most they should have resigned Shaq after resigning Kobe.  If Kobe made the Shaq or me demend to the Lakers I think Shaq's public comments and insult of Buss made the decision easy.  It was a decision that's going to make Laker life tough but it's not anything new, the Lakers have been there before.  While I would have preferred a similar transition of the Lakers becoming Magic's team instead of Kareem's, a process that involved trading away popular players in order to transform the Lakers from a half court team to a fast break team and then BACK again.  That process was NOT painfull at all, the Lakers stayed on top whild the team was completely retooled, only Magic, Kareem and Cooper lived out the entire showtime era.  Nixon, Rambis, McAdoo, Lucas, McGee and Kupchak all came and went, as painfull as Nixon and Rambus going was it was for the good of the team.  Unfortunately, because of what the game and players have become, the transition has to be painfull.  Kobe and Shaq forced the situation and IMO Buss and the Lakers made the right decision.

I've stated before the various reasons why picking Kobe over Shaq was correct, don't need to get into that again.  Knowing what I know NOW I would still make the same decision, I just wish the Lakers could have gotten more for Shaq.  Dirk, Amare, KG or TD would have been PERFECT for L.A.  Most if not all of those guys were untouchable, although I had high hopes for Dirk because he was the 2nd best DREAM option.  At this point I don't know what the timeline will be for the Lakers return to glory, all I know is it will happen.  Laker history has taught me as much.  Lakers have been to the promised land before and after West, Magic, Kareem, Wilt and Worthy.  They will be there after Shaq and Kobe.  No other franchise, including Boston, can claim the success of the Lakers.  The Celtics made their mark with one player, Russell.  They have not dominated the league since.  The Lakers have dominated the league three times and have won titles in 5 or 6 decades.  Teams like the Bulls, Spurs, Pistons, 76'ers and Rockets don't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath.  The Bulls come close but they were defined by one man, even the Celtics are defined by more than one player, in fact the Celts are like a roll call of the who's who of the Hall of Fame.

I know there is a point in there somewhere.

[JoMal]

Actually, WOW, you have clarified things much, much more then westkoast or Randy could ever have done. Not answering every Laker issue with, "Yeah, but look at the Kings......" is so much more interesting and leads to a clearer discussion on the original issue that I can't tell you how refreshing it was to read a post from a Laker fan that covers the topic intelligently.

That point about embarrassing Buss could very well be the reason Shaq was dismissed, though Joe's point that is was unnecessary and could hurt the Lakers in the long run is extremely valid. If Buss is that ego-driven, your arguement that the Lakers will eventually bounce back has a built in problem to it occurring. Buss may have driven the best people able to do that away from the organization, leaving just him to make those decisions. I highly doubt other organizations, for one, will find it worthwhile trying to work out any type of deal with a meglomaniac any time soon.

Joe also mentioned the Lakers tying themselves to Kobe Bryant like no other organization ever has to a superstar player, which could be the biggest hindrance to the Lakers achieving that upper echelon status within the League any time soon. I am not talking about building a team around him, which is how to create that success, but they left no option BUT to build around him.

And this is the main point I have stressed since this topic was brought up.

Will the Lakers ever succeed as long as they tie their horse to Bryant? Is the history of success the Lakers have bragged about for so long going to continue when any guy brought in automatically must know he will never be mentioned as anything but a supporting player? Maybe Kobe did not drive Shaq out of town and it was Buss' choice to keep Bryant and jettison O'Neal. Fine. Shaq is gone and the Lakers get to keep Bryant. It still looks like Kobe won the battle and some players are going to wonder why a dominant big man was NOT chosen over a tarnished guard. If they find nothing wrong with that, the Lakers will have the opportunity to sign that player. But it also could deter some from wanting to become a part of such a scenario, and the face they will put to the problem won't be Buss', but Kobe's.

[Skandery]

I highly doubt other organizations, for one, will find it worthwhile trying to work out any type of deal with a meglomaniac any time soon.

It actually won't matter how big of a meglomaniac Jerry Buss is, JoMaL, he remains one of the most powerful owners of a storied franchise based in Hollywood.  He will aggressively search out players and he'll nab his fair share.  You're going to have your Shaq's and your Cat's wanting to bask in those lights in front of "Heeeeeere's Johnny".  In regards to Buss, its a philosophical matter I've long since held as truth, *begrudgingly*: "Might makes Right."

Joe also mentioned the Lakers tying themselves to Kobe Bryant like no other organization ever has to a superstar player, which could be the biggest hindrance to the Lakers achieving that upper echelon status within the League any time soon.

The point that it is going to be harder (if possible) to regain elite status with Kobe as your "franchise face" is a valid point.  But to say the Lakers have tied themselves to Kobe like no other organization has before is false.  If Duncan were to keel over and die (god forbid), you're looking at a long and painful rebuilding process in Spurs country, and they are, by some estimates, the most dominant team today.  I think many a team have whole-heartedly devoted themselves to ONE player, in all capacities.  The Sixers with Wilt, the Celtics with Bird, the Bulls with Jordan, the Jazz with Stockton + Malone, the Knicks with Ewing, the Rockets with Olajuwon, the Pistons with Isiah, the Pacers with Miller, on and on and on.  And I believe this trend is more prevalent today, ironically, since everyone talks about how there is no team loyalty any more and the length of contracts isn't what it used to be.  But think about it haven't the Bucks (90 million to Michael Redd) or the Sonics (85 million to Ray Allen) essentially tied themselves to their respective players?  Aren't the Cavs and the Suns going to do the same thing over the next couple of years?

As far as answering the question of will the Lakers find success with Bryant, and how hard is it going to be.  I'm of the opinion that they will regain sufficient status to become a playoff contender, maybe even make it to the Finals one of these years, and that is a big *MAYBE*.  Will they ever dominate the league like they did 1999-2004, NO!  In any case I find the predicament largely irrelevant since they should never have gotten to the place where they are at presently.  

   

[WayOutWest]

Will they ever dominate the league like they did 1999-2004, NO!

Skandry,

I think you just flashed some of your "clueless" true colors on that one!

I have two words for you Skandry:

Andrew Bynum

CASE CLOSED!

[Laker Fan]

Actually, WOW, you have clarified things much, much more then westkoast or Randy could ever have done. Not answering every Laker issue with, "Yeah, but look at the Kings......" is so much more interesting and leads to a clearer discussion on the original issue that I can't tell you how refreshing it was to read a post from a Laker fan that covers the topic intelligently.

That point about embarrassing Buss could very well be the reason Shaq was dismissed, though Joe's point that is was unnecessary and could hurt the Lakers in the long run is extremely valid.

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!"

As much as Laker haters love to make the point that Kobe drove Shaq away, let us not forget Shaq had no intention of playing with Kobe either, his excuse that if Phil leaves he leaves was just smoke and mirrors, under contract or no, he proved that when he is unhappy (which is OFTEN), he can and does sabatoge a teams chance for success by coming into camp and into the season fat, lazy, uninspired, unmotivated, injured, and daring anyone to crtiticize him for it, and his last 2 years with the Lakers domonstrated that Shaq, is about Shaq, no one else and certainly no team. Kobe has NEVER done such a thing, when it comes to being a full of himself egomaniac, he is EASILY Shaq equal, but no way is he worse, but he leaves it all on the floor every night, and works on his game on and off season, his workout ethic rivals Karl Malones and while his ego erroniously demands that he be the man, it is still about the team winning.

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.

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.

[Joe Vancil]

Skander,

I'd like to argue this point with you in response to Dan.

I think many a team have whole-heartedly devoted themselves to ONE player, in all capacities. The Sixers with Wilt, the Celtics with Bird, the Bulls with Jordan, the Jazz with Stockton + Malone, the Knicks with Ewing, the Rockets with Olajuwon, the Pistons with Isiah, the Pacers with Miller, on and on and on. And I believe this trend is more prevalent today, ironically, since everyone talks about how there is no team loyalty any more and the length of contracts isn't what it used to be. But think about it haven't the Bucks (90 million to Michael Redd) or the Sonics (85 million to Ray Allen) essentially tied themselves to their respective players? Aren't the Cavs and the Suns going to do the same thing over the next couple of years?

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.  A good comparison to Kobe would be Scottie Pippen - refusing to report into a game for the last second shot when he wasn't going to get it.  A better comparison would be Allen Iverson, who has, to this point, been unable to co-exist with ANY other scoring threat the 76ers have put out there.

The Bird Celtics, Jordan Bulls, the Stockton/Malone Jazz, the Thomas Pistons, the Miller Pacers, the Olajuwon Rockets, and the Ewing Knicks are also poor examples because you're looking at the focal point.  A better comparison to Bryant would be the McHale Celtics, the Pippen Bulls, the Hornacek Jazz, the Dumars Pistons, the Jackson Pacers, the Drexler Rockets, and the Starks Knicks - because the 2004 team was the O'Neal Lakers - not the Bryant Lakers.  As great a star as he was, Kobe was the second option - O'Neal was the first.  Had Pippen staged a revolt in Detroit, or Starks in New York, or McHale in Boston, the revolt would fail - regardless of how much of a jerk, lazy bum, or egomaniac that Jordan/Ewing/Bird was.  A strong coach puts down that revolt.  A strong GM supports the coach who puts down the revolt.  In Los Angeles, both coach and focal point had to go.

Finally, name the highest profile teammate SENT AWAY because that teammate couldn't get along with Bird, Jordan, Stockton/Malone, Thomas, Miller, Olajuwon, or Ewing.  Not because they couldn't play together....because they couldn't get along!  When you approach the situation from that angle, essentially, you're looking at just folks like Allen Iverson who can be mentioned in the same breath.

To my knowledge, of all the players above, only Olajuwon and Malone ever threatened not to re-sign with their teams.  (Malone made a yearly event out of it.)  Essentially, every other contract was, "You want how much for how long?  Fine.  Done."  Only with Bryant was there a real front-office fear that he wasn't coming back.  Only the Laker front office was "forced" into a reaction.

It's one thing to humor a star - every team does that - but it's another to capitulate to that star in a way which hurts the team's winning.

As for the points with Redd and Allen - NO, these teams aren't "tying" themselves to these players.  Either player is of insufficient ability for a team to be unable to replace them.  Your LeBron James and Amare Stoudemire examples are better...but, again, James is the undisputed team leader.  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.

Only the Lakers have said, "I don't care if we ARE going to get worse...we need to make sure we don't lose Kobe Bryant."  You never heard such things about famous second options like Magic Johnson.  Magic could force the coach out - the only "second option" ever to successfully do it that I'm aware of - but it was done with the intent of WINNING - not losing "for a while."

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

[WayOutWest]

A better comparison to Bryant would be the McHale Celtics, the Pippen Bulls, the Hornacek Jazz, the Dumars Pistons, the Jackson Pacers, the Drexler Rockets, and the Starks Knicks - because the 2004 team was the O'Neal Lakers - not the Bryant Lakers.  As great a star as he was, Kobe was the second option - O'Neal was the first.

Speaking of bad examples!!!!!  Horrid, only Dumars comes withing the ball park.  The problem is the huge diparity between the first and second options worth to the team.  Kobe was/is the best at his position as is Shaq.  The Magic/Kareem scenario is alot closer.  Dirk/Nash, Amare/Nash or even Peja/Webber are closer to the mark as far as player team value, not comparing their talent to Kobe.

Had Pippen staged a revolt in Detroit, or Starks in New York, or McHale in Boston, the revolt would fail - regardless of how much of a jerk, lazy bum, or egomaniac that Jordan/Ewing/Bird was.  A strong coach puts down that revolt.  A strong GM supports the coach who puts down the revolt.  In Los Angeles, both coach and focal point had to go.

Your HORRID mistake invalidates the point you are trying to make here, I await your correction before addressing!!!

[Joe Vancil]

And I now look like a complete idiot with the remark, "Had Pippen staged a revolt in Detroit..."

Why is it I cite an example of violence (a revolt), and immediately, I think "Detroit"?

 

[Joe Vancil]

You caught it just as I did, WOW.

 

[Joe Vancil]

And speaking of the Peja/Webber situation, WayOut, I'm probably the only person of the opinion that dumping Webber for three semi-scrubs was a mistake.

Sacramento recovered well by signing Abdur-Rahim.  But with the number of changes made, this could be a *VERY* long year for the Kings.