It's Time To Hate The Lakers Again

[Wamu]

It's too bad, Kobe Bryant isn't around to beat him into shape - I heard he used to be rough - One time he pulled the players out at 2 am in the morning to practice for the Conference finals which they won - LMAO

It's always gonna be sad that Kobe's no longer around.

 

[tc1]

Alrighty then. Just wondering how tlance embarrassed himself, did he have the cojones to disagree with you?

You can just read the thread -- specifically where they claimed that NBA franchises want to avoid being in the middle-of-the-pack, despite almost all recent champions building from exactly that location.

And then, after I illustrated exactly how and why they are wrong, they doubled and tripled and quadrupled down on one of the stupidest, least-defensible claims seen on the internet in a while.

Does that about cover it?

 

[tc1]

You know, admitting you are wrong occasionally would actually win you some points here.

I implement a different strategy. I make sure that I am not wrong before I set fingers to keyboard, so that I never have to do that. It really isn't that hard. Just don't talk out of your nether regions on topics you are unprepared for -- if need be, do your homework first. It isn't rocket surgery.

But, if I ever am wrong, I'll be sure to let you know.

 

[trojanfan12]

I have mixed feelings about - He is lazy and has a bad work ethic - and he is a heavy drinking - The Lakers are hoping that Lebron can mentor him and turn his attitude around - This where the Lakers got spoiled on Kobe Bryant and then Lebron - If Lebron can turn him around than we will see.

I'm not terribly concerned about his drinking, etc.

I remember a Lakers point guard who was known for enjoying a lot of partying, drinking and other "extracurricular activities" and that guy went on to win 3 MVP awards, 5 championships and was All-NBA 10 times. When he got married and into his 30's he adjusted his lifestyle a bit and was able to play several more years at a high level.

Luka is only 25, he's at that age where he can party all night roll out of bed the next morning and still play at a very high level.

Now, if he hits his 30's and hasn't adjusted, then I'll be concerned because that's when it will start be a real issue.

 

[trojanfan12]

And yes a Celtics/Lakers Finals would be neat to see again.

Especially if it ends the same way the last one did.

 

[tlance]

I implement a different strategy. I make sure that I am not wrong before I set fingers to keyboard, so that I never have to do that. It really isn't that hard. Just don't talk out of your nether regions on topics you are unprepared for -- if need be, do your homework first. It isn't rocket surgery.

But, if I ever am wrong, I'll be sure to let you know.

Hilarious

At least you do have a sense of humor

 

[Wamu]

Especially if it ends the same way the last one did.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

I'm not terribly concerned about his drinking, etc.

I remember a Lakers point guard who was known for enjoying a lot of partying, drinking and other "extracurricular activities" and that guy went on to win 3 MVP awards, 5 championships and was All-NBA 10 times. When he got married and into his 30's he adjusted his lifestyle a bit and was able to play several more years at a high level.

Luks is only 25, he's at that age where he can party all night roll out of bed the next morning and still play at a very high level.

Now, if he hits his 30's and hasn't adjusted, then I'll be concerned because that's when it will start be a real issue.

No, but when you are negotiating - you have to roll with whatever you have to bring the price down- Right?

That's what Pelinka did and I personally believe that LeBron will straighten him out

 

[Wamu]

You can just read the thread -- specifically where they claimed that NBA franchises want to avoid being in the middle-of-the-pack, despite almost all recent champions building from exactly that location.

And then, after I illustrated exactly how and why they are wrong, they doubled and tripled and quadrupled down on one of the stupidest, least-defensible claims seen on the internet in a while.

Does that about cover it?

I've already read enough of your comments.

"I illustrated exactly how and why they are wrong" <-----

Yeah okay.

 

[trojanfan12]

And year after year after year we see middle-of-the-pack teams turn into legit contenders, and champions.

There is a difference between being middle of the pack because you're an up-and-coming young team on your way to becoming a contender like the Thunder and Cavs the past couple of years before taking off this year...and being a team that is perennially in that 4-8 range where you're good enough to make the playoffs most years, but never able to get to contender status.

That's why you see so many teams willing to "tank" for a few years so they can rebuild through the draft...especially teams that are not located in destination cities.

 

[shopson67]

You can just read the thread -- specifically where they claimed that NBA franchises want to avoid being in the middle-of-the-pack, despite almost all recent champions building from exactly that location.

And then, after I illustrated exactly how and why they are wrong, they doubled and tripled and quadrupled down on one of the stupidest, least-defensible claims seen on the internet in a while.

Does that about cover it?

Depends on from where you measure the start of the build. Celtics are built upon two high lottery draft picks. Lakers in 2020 were built on a team that bottomed out and aggregated those high lottery picks into AD while luring Lebron in FA. Warriors are a continuation of a dynasty built around their lottery pick backcourt. Then you have the teams with the unicorns (Jokic, Giannis) which allow a team to defy the standard team builds by emerging from later in their drafts.

 

[tc1]

yes a Celtics/Lakers Finals would be neat to see again.

Please, no. Lakers/Celtics is completely worn out. We've seen that show a bunch of times. If you want to watch re-runs, there are TV channels for that.

The best Finals opponent is Cleveland. The Lakers have already have playoff series wins against every team in the League except for 4 -- Cleveland, Toronto, Charlotte, and the Clippers. Toronto and Charlotte are not options this year, so it would be great to cross Cleveland off their to-do list. I want the Lakers to complete that bonkers accomplishment of beating everyone in the playoffs.

And, of course, people would go crazy for James vs Cleveland.

 

[tc1]

I've already read enough of your comments.

"I illustrated exactly how and why they are wrong" <-----

Yeah okay.

What exactly would you call it, then? The claim was that being in the middle-of-the-pack in the NBA is a hopeless situation. I showed that, in reality, almost all recent NBA champions came directly from the middle-of-the-pack of the league, by building gradually over a few seasons. That is exactly the procedure that the original claim said was impossible.

What more could you possibly want?

 

[tc1]

Depends on from where you measure the start of the build.

No, it doesn't. All of these teams spent at least multiple seasons in the middle-of-the-pack. The claim was that there is no escape from that situation -- and that claim has been demonstrated to be wrong.

Warriors are a continuation of a dynasty built around their lottery pick backcourt.

That's a stretch -- Curry was a #7 pick and Thompson was #11. Those are picks that are, or are very close to, middle-of-the-pack draft picks.

Then you have the teams with the unicorns (Jokic, Giannis) which allow a team to defy the standard team builds by emerging from later in their drafts.

There are an awful lot of unicorns roaming around this League these days. Almost a herd. In addition to those two, you've got Gilgeous-Alexander, Curry, Lilliard, Brunson, Booker, Leonard, Mitchell, Maxey, Butler, and maybe others -- none of whom were high picks.

It is tempting to believe -- especially if one's team is bad or is bad at drafting -- that the best players are all top 5 picks. They are not. Last year's All-star game featured 11 top-5 picks, and 13 players who were drafted later.

Point being, a team does not have to be bad to acquire top-end talent in the draft.

 

[tc1]

There is a difference between being middle of the pack because you're an up-and-coming young team on your way to becoming a contender like the Thunder and Cavs the past couple of years before taking off this year...and being a team that is perennially in that 4-8 range where you're good enough to make the playoffs most years, but never able to get to contender status.

Is there?

First of all, the original claim was that a team ought to refuse a superior trade package in order to avoid climbing into the middle-of-the-pack. In other words, they should explicitly avoid becoming an "up-and-coming young team". That's nonsense, as demonstrated. Even if you manage to acquire a star, you still need to surround him with quality players, if you hope to win anything. If you wait until after you find that star to start building a roster, you may wind up like, say, Atlanta -- who managed to get Young, but still suck, and he can be gone after next year.

Second, as previously observed, find teams who are "perennially" stuck in that 4-8 range. It's a lot harder than you suggest. The only current examples are Chicago and Atlanta -- for five seasons each, which is not perennial. And both have stars, they just haven't made anything work yet.

That's why you see so many teams willing to "tank" for a few years so they can rebuild through the draft...especially teams that are not located in destination cities.

Yes, I'm aware -- and how is the track record for that approach? It sucks. The only franchise to successfully pull this off for at-least many decades has been San Antonio, and only because they have absolutely zero pride, integrity, or self-respect. The League should contract the San Antonio franchise before they again damage what remains of the integrity of the game, but that's another thread.

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

Please, no. Lakers/Celtics is completely worn out. We've seen that show a bunch of times. If you want to watch re-runs, there are TV channels for that.

The best Finals opponent is Cleveland. The Lakers have already have playoff series wins against every team in the League except for 4 -- Cleveland, Toronto, Charlotte, and the Clippers. Toronto and Charlotte are not options this year, so it would be great to cross Cleveland off their to-do list. I want the Lakers to complete that bonkers accomplishment of beating everyone in the playoffs.

And, of course, people would go crazy for James vs Cleveland.

I can't stand either team, and although I actually wouldn't mind seeing that series...but I just don't think it'll happen this year.

 

[tlance]

No, it doesn't. All of these teams spent at least multiple seasons in the middle-of-the-pack. The claim was that there is no escape from that situation -- and that claim has been demonstrated to be wrong.



That's a stretch -- Curry was a #7 pick and Thompson was #11. Those are picks that are, or are very close to, middle-of-the-pack draft picks.



There are an awful lot of unicorns roaming around this League these days. Almost a herd. In addition to those two, you've got Gilgeous-Alexander, Curry, Lilliard, Brunson, Booker, Leonard, Mitchell, Maxey, Butler, and maybe others -- none of whom were high picks.

It is tempting to believe -- especially if one's team is bad or is bad at drafting -- that the best players are all top 5 picks. They are not. Last year's All-star game featured 11 top-5 picks, and 13 players who were drafted later.

Point being, a team does not have to be bad to acquire top-end talent in the draft.

When you redefine the term someone else used to mean something different than the way they used it, I guess you can claim whatever you want.

The Warriors won 48 games in ‘08. The. They rebuilt over the next few years with win totals of 29, 26, 36, and 23

That is clearly not a sustained period in the middle of the pack without being on an upward trajectory as I defined it.

Now if you want to change the parameters and make the middle of the pack a much looser construct, then of course you going to make it look different, like 25- 55 wins. But if your definition includes these Warriors and the more recent Celtics we are talking about completely different things.

Like most teams, the Warriors bottomed out, assembled their core, added a couple pieces, changed coaches…

Then they got to the promised land.

But it definitely did not start in the middle of the pack as I defined it and they rose pretty quickly to contender status once they made the playoffs.

Now you want to tell me how 20 something wins is middle of the pack to you?

That is fine.

But it isn’t want I mean and you clearly know this.

 

[tc1]

When you redefine the term someone else used to mean something different than the way they used it, I guess you can claim whatever you want.

You have scarcely used the same criteria twice consecutively, so it is quite difficult for anyone to follow along with your ever-changing definition of "middle-of-the-pack".

The Warriors won 48 games in ‘08. The. They rebuilt over the next few years with win totals of 29, 26, 36, and 23

That is clearly not a sustained period in the middle of the pack without being on an upward trajectory as I defined it.

This is an example -- now "sustained" residence is required. But that should be redundant, because you claim teams get stuck here. If some do not sustain their residency, clearly the middle is not as sticky as you're trying to claim.

Also, you recently wrote "Mediocrity is like the current Bulls roster. That is middle of the pack." Chicago is on pace for 34 wins, right in the same range as those Warriors (who won 47 the subsequent year).

Like most teams, the Warriors bottomed out, assembled their core, added a couple pieces, changed coaches…

Assembled their core with draft picks that are available to middle of the pack teams. Added a couple pieces while they were a middle of the pack team. And progressed to winning.

Did not get stuck in the middle -- which almost no one does.

But it definitely did not start in the middle of the pack as I defined it and they rose pretty quickly to contender status once they made the playoffs.

Who ever said anything about starting in the middle? You claimed that teams must avoid the middle of the pack -- even to the point of refusing a superior trade return, because that is a hopeless location for an NBA team.

You were, and remain, completely wrong, as nearly every champ builds from the middle, before winning.

It's difficult to find any champs who didn't build from being middle-of-the-pack. The Bucks went directly from expansion-team, to losing to the champs in the 'Conference' Finals, to being champs, but there are exceedingly few other examples.

The Spurs, but they don't _really_ count since they were throwing games.

 

[DJ Fieri]

It's always gonna be sad that Kobe's no longer around.

This.

Passed away far too young. May he RIP.

 

[tlance]

You have scarcely used the same criteria twice consecutively, so it is quite difficult for anyone to follow along with your ever-changing definition of "middle-of-the-pack".



This is an example -- now "sustained" residence is required. But that should be redundant, because you claim teams get stuck here. If some do not sustain their residency, clearly the middle is not as sticky as you're trying to claim.

Also, you recently wrote "Mediocrity is like the current Bulls roster. That is middle of the pack." Chicago is on pace for 34 wins, right in the same range as those Warriors (who won 47 the subsequent year).




Assembled their core with draft picks that are available to middle of the pack teams. Added a couple pieces while they were a middle of the pack team. And progressed to winning.

Did not get stuck in the middle -- which almost no one does.




Who ever said anything about starting in the middle? You claimed that teams must avoid the middle of the pack -- even to the point of refusing a superior trade return, because that is a hopeless location for an NBA team.

You were, and remain, completely wrong, as nearly every champ builds from the middle, before winning.

It's difficult to find any champs who didn't build from being middle-of-the-pack. The Bucks went directly from expansion-team, to losing to the champs in the 'Conference' Finals, to being champs, but there are exceedingly few other examples.

The Spurs, but they don't _really_ count since they were throwing games.

Were they a team that plateaued and got stuck in the middle of the pack for years without any real progress?

Sorry, but we talk about this stuff all the time. Everyone else here knows what I meant by it.

If you aren’t sure, maybe ask next time instead of making assumptions and telling everyone it is a stupid claim.

Conventional wisdom is you can’t get stuck in the middle for too long.

You claim “clearly superior package”

But you honestly saying that adding Scola, Martin and Odom to a roster with Jarret Jack and Belinelli as 2 of their leading scorers is better than adding Eric Gordon (who was their best best player) a 2nd lottery pick and making your own pick more valuable by losing more games?

Anthony Davis isn’t drafted by the Hornets/Pelicans if they take the Laker deal.

Say what you will about that. Nobody would rather have that collection of vets over Anthony Davis.

There is a reason that most of the time these stars are traded for future assets. The teams involved in the deal were clearly moving in opposite directions. The Clipper package helped the Hornets bottom out and get Davis. The Laker package would have got them stuck in NBA purgatory.