Time to trade away assets for picks

[trojanfan12]

I hope you're right and that I'm dead wrong Trojanfan but I think this down time for the lakers will be a long one. They will stick with Scott and Kobe another two years and then they will decide to make some tough choices. Were looking at 5 years of nowhere and no playoffs in my opinion. Are you sure you're not Mitch Kupchak?

It definitely could last longer than the 3 year plan that the FO says they have. Jim Buss has taken responsibility for the 3 year plan and says he'll step down if it doesn't work. Jeanie, who has the ultimate power with the Lakers, says it started this year and that she will hold him to it.

It gives me some confidence because they own the team and didn't have to do it. Jim could have said nothing and if his plan didn't work, he could have just said "Well, back to the drawing board." Instead, he seems willing to put his money where his mouth is (so to speak).

Jeanie could have said, "I'm not firing my brother, it'll be up to him if he wants to step down." Instead, she says she'll hold him to it. That doesn't sound like owners kids running Daddy's business into the ground as some have suggested they are doing. That sounds like the kind of accountability that the Lakers had under Dr. Buss.

I'm not Mitch, but I do trust him. He trained under Jerry West and has made some very good moves in the past as the GM.

I think they will stick with Byron for longer than 2 years. I think they will give him at least 3 years after they improve the roster for him show what he can do.

As for Kobe, I think next year is it for him. The only way that I see him coming back after next year is if it looks like they have a shot at a title AND he's still playing at a relatively high level. If that's the case, then I could see him waiting until the Lakers make whatever FA moves they are going to, get those guys signed and then sign him to a 1 year deal.

For me, the rest of this season is about watching the young guys develop. In the off-season, things are going to get very, very interesting.

 

[trojanfan12]

I think the Lakers made the right choice with Byron Scott who preaches defense and has connections with the old Lakers players that won five championships went to the finals 8 times in 10 years or something like that. I have seen even Boozer using movements that clearly Worthy taught him on one of the sessions I watched. My belief is that what has made the Lakers a more worthy opponent is their willingness to develop their own talent and teach them rather than expect players to learn on their own

While the team is obviously terrible because they just don't have a lot of talent, he has them playing hard every night. They don't always play well, but they always play hard. As a fan, I can forgive the losing because of a lack of talent, but not because of a lack of effort.

This is why we see so many games where they hang around, even against good teams, but eventually end up fading late. Late in games is when talent takes over and the Lakers just don't have much.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

While the team is obviously terrible because they just don't have a lot of talent, he has them playing hard every night. They don't always play well, but they always play hard. As a fan, I can forgive the losing because of a lack of talent, but not because of a lack of effort.

This is why we see so many games where they hang around, even against good teams, but eventually end up fading late. Late in games is when talent takes over and the Lakers just don't have much.

At this point, I want the Lakers to get that pick and it's the right thing to do, but at the same time, as a fan I wouldn't want the Lakers making changes that would cost them that pick. The downside is that you have to blow up the team this summer beginning with the lazy ones. I've already seen to many of them standing and watching while the point guard drives to the lane and lays it in time after time. Lin and Boozer would be keepers only if you put them in the second unit and can sign them for below the mid level exception - but you have Davis, Randle, the pick the Lakers will get this summer, Swaggy and Sacre not to mention Ellington to choose for the second unit, so the lazy ones are definitely expendable(like your ex-wife)

 

[wildturkey]

Name a coach that won without a roster of players that could win? How many championships did Phil win without a great roster? When Phil didn't have a championship roster, he didn't win championships. In fact, he did no better than Mike Brown with the same roster.

What difference has Karl ever made? He got fired in Denver because his teams underachieved and he couldn't get them past the 2nd round.

I didn't acknowledge anything unknowingly. I said when Byron has a roster that can win, he wins. Just like any other coach.

Sorry, like I said, I wouldn't have complained if the Lakers hired Karl but he has shown no more than Byron has. He hasn't even been as far in the playoffs as Byron has. Even if the Lakers gave him a talented roster, there is no evidence to show that he'd accomplish any more as the Lakers coach than Del Harris did.

He's also 10 years older than Byron. So even if the Lakers hired him, how long would he really be the coach? 5 years maybe? If that. At least with Byron there is also the possibility that he could be the coach long term if he shows he can do the job.

First off, what standards are you using? Are you judging everything off of if a coach wins a championship? Because if so, then it is useless for anyone to have this discussion with you.

Secondly, Karl didn't get fired because he underachieved in Denver. He was fired because Denver's front office is retarded. Hell, he won coach of the year the year he was fired. Not only that, he was competitive with a Melo based team and once Melo was dealt, completely changed to the talent around him and kept the team humming along (some would even say better than with Melo). That is clear evidence of coaching skill, not just roster talent. And that's just from his Denver days. George Karl is a good coach and is better than Byron Scott. You are just flat out dead wrong if you don't think so. I'm not going to bother to show you otherwise if you truly think that. There is no point, especially if you're just judging things off of if a guy wins a championship.

As for the age thing for a coach, so what? 5 years is a lifetime in the NBA. Literally, its the max lifetime of a contract a team can give a player (if he's resigning with his own team, all others are 4 years). Rosters can be significantly different in that span. That's plenty to get that far down the line and see what happens. Age shouldn't factor in for a coach unless the guy is like freaking 75. If you're looking 5+ years down the line, you're overlooking what needs to be done now, which means you ain't getting any where useful anyway. Plus, LA fans were screaming for Phil (69), who is older than Karl (63), so don't even go there with the age stuff. Don't take this as me trying to fight you but that's weak sauce. You're grasping at anything at all to defend Scott on that one.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Karl had a problem with cancer and nearly died one year and obviously his health was failing. I think the front office simply wanted a younger coach that could hold up to the grind and didn't realize that Karl was getting more out their teams then any other coach could ever hope to get. Shaw is a good coach, but Karl was better

 

[LALakersboy24.7]

Pure conjecture on your part...I have George Karls excellent win loss record and Scotts terrible record to trump your bologna. Go ahead and believe what you want, If Scott takes the Lakers to the finals or even the playoffs I will eat crow. However I think you will have a very long wait. But I'm only human maybe I'm wrong...I tell you what; lets take a look at Scotts college coaching record oh wait...HE HAS NONE!

Who give's a shit? this is irrelevant. Remember when the great coach Rick Pitino went on to coach the Celtics after he left Kentucky. How did that all play out?

Just because a coach might have a great track record in college or abroad, doesn't mean he will succeed in the NBA as a coach, it's a whole different monster. Phil Jackson never coached in college, and his probably the GOAT as an NBA coach.

2nd regardless of who would be the coach, the Lakers are in rebuild mode, and we were in for a long wait no matter who was coaching, to make the finals, or playoff's. The roster is just flat out shit!

 

[trojanfan12]

First off, what standards are you using? Are you judging everything off of if a coach wins a championship? Because if so, then it is useless for anyone to have this discussion with you.

Secondly, Karl didn't get fired because he underachieved in Denver. He was fired because Denver's front office is retarded. Hell, he won coach of the year the year he was fired. Not only that, he was competitive with a Melo based team and once Melo was dealt, completely changed to the talent around him and kept the team humming along (some would even say better than with Melo). That is clear evidence of coaching skill, not just roster talent. And that's just from his Denver days. George Karl is a good coach and is better than Byron Scott. You are just flat out dead wrong if you don't think so. I'm not going to bother to show you otherwise if you truly think that. There is no point, especially if you're just judging things off of if a guy wins a championship.

As for the age thing for a coach, so what? 5 years is a lifetime in the NBA. Literally, its the max lifetime of a contract a team can give a player (if he's resigning with his own team, all others are 4 years). Rosters can be significantly different in that span. That's plenty to get that far down the line and see what happens. Age shouldn't factor in for a coach unless the guy is like freaking 75. If you're looking 5+ years down the line, you're overlooking what needs to be done now, which means you ain't getting any where useful anyway. Plus, LA fans were screaming for Phil (69), who is older than Karl (63), so don't even go there with the age stuff. Don't take this as me trying to fight you but that's weak sauce. You're grasping at anything at all to defend Scott on that one.

First of all, championships are the standards that the Lakers have ALWAYS used. So, if those standards are to high for you, then you're right, it is useless to have this discussion with me. I didn't set those standards, the Lakers did.

Second, whether the Nuggets FO is retarded or not, doesn't change the fact that the reason given was his teams underachieving and it doesn't change the fact that he's never gotten a team to the finals, even when he's had teams talented enough to do so. This is clear evidence that he is a good to very good regular season coach, but not a playoff or championship coach. He is Del Harris and Del Harris wasn't good enough for the Lakers which is why he was fired and Phil was brought in.

5 years is a lifetime in the NBA if you're a good regular season coach. Coaches like Riley, Phil, Popovich, etc. (you know, guys with multiple titles), tend to stick around longer than 5 years. This makes the age thing very relevant. Also, many Lakers fans may have wanted Phil back, I'm not one of them. His time as a coach has passed and that became obvious over his last couple of seasons with the Lakers. He couldn't even get them any farther in the playoffs than Mike Brown. In my opinion, he was simply too old and has too many health issues to be an effective coach any more. Heck, there were reports (which he has denied) that he only wanted to coach home games and certain away games with shorter flights. Part of the reason he was willing to accept the GM position in New York is because they don't expect him to be there every day and were willing to let him do some of his job remotely.

I'm not grasping at anything to defend Scott. You're actually grasping at anything to try and prove that he's the wrong hire and that they should have hired Karl. Despite the fact that he hasn't even coached a full season yet and hasn't had anything close to a healthy roster.

Like I said, I think Karl is a very good coach and I wouldn't have complained if they hired him. But I like Byron better and I like the fact that if he's as successful as I think we ALL hope that he will be, he is young enough, that he will stick around long enough, so that we won't be having the "is he going to retire now" questions that we went through during Phil's entire 2nd tenure as the Lakers coach.

 

[trojanfan12]

Who give's a shit? this is irrelevant. Remember when the great coach Rick Pitino went on to coach the Celtics after he left Kentucky. How did that all play out?

Just because a coach might have a great track record in college or abroad, doesn't mean he will succeed in the NBA as a coach, it's a whole different monster. Phil Jackson never coached in college, and his probably the GOAT as an NBA coach.

2nd regardless of who would be the coach, the Lakers are in rebuild mode, and we were in for a long wait no matter who was coaching, to make the finals, or playoff's. The roster is just flat out shit!

You can also add Pat Riley, George Karl and even Red Auerbach as coaches who never coached in college. The extent of Greg Popovich's college coaching career is a few years as an assistant coach with the Air Force Academy and a few years coaching Division III Pomona-Pitzer.

 

[Retroram52]

Some of this stuff about histories can be ridiculous and doesn't necessarily, 100% determine success if the guy can get you what you want which is a championship. Riley is the classic example.

If previous college experience and player experience is the criteria for getting you championships, then Bill Russell as a coach and Michael Jordon as an owner should have had multiple championships in those capacities but neither have any.

Sometimes the chances of a championship is a myriad of indicators and the right combinational "fit" of players and coaching style and a shared consortium of goals to have it all click. Some even believe it just comes down to luck but many would argue otherwise.

 

[trojanfan12]

Some of this stuff about histories can be ridiculous and doesn't necessarily, 100% determine success if the guy can get you what you want which is a championship. Riley is the classic example.

If previous college experience and player experience is the criteria for getting you championships, then Bill Russell as a coach and Michael Jordon as an owner should have had multiple championships in those capacities but neither have any.

Sometimes the chances of a championship is a myriad of indicators and the right combinational "fit" of players and coaching style and a shared consortium of goals to have it all click. Some even believe it just comes down to luck but many would argue otherwise.

Also, there's no doubt that luck has it's role in winning championships. As the late, great Chick Hearn used to say: "Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good and if you can be both, you might have something."

 

[wildturkey]

First of all, championships are the standards that the Lakers have ALWAYS used. So, if those standards are to high for you, then you're right, it is useless to have this discussion with me. I didn't set those standards, the Lakers did.

Second, whether the Nuggets FO is retarded or not, doesn't change the fact that the reason given was his teams underachieving and it doesn't change the fact that he's never gotten a team to the finals, even when he's had teams talented enough to do so. This is clear evidence that he is a good to very good regular season coach, but not a playoff or championship coach. He is Del Harris and Del Harris wasn't good enough for the Lakers which is why he was fired and Phil was brought in.

5 years is a lifetime in the NBA if you're a good regular season coach. Coaches like Riley, Phil, Popovich, etc. (you know, guys with multiple titles), tend to stick around longer than 5 years. This makes the age thing very relevant. Also, many Lakers fans may have wanted Phil back, I'm not one of them. His time as a coach has passed and that became obvious over his last couple of seasons with the Lakers. He couldn't even get them any farther in the playoffs than Mike Brown. In my opinion, he was simply too old and has too many health issues to be an effective coach any more. Heck, there were reports (which he has denied) that he only wanted to coach home games and certain away games with shorter flights. Part of the reason he was willing to accept the GM position in New York is because they don't expect him to be there every day and were willing to let him do some of his job remotely.

I'm not grasping at anything to defend Scott. You're actually grasping at anything to try and prove that he's the wrong hire and that they should have hired Karl. Despite the fact that he hasn't even coached a full season yet and hasn't had anything close to a healthy roster.

Like I said, I think Karl is a very good coach and I wouldn't have complained if they hired him. But I like Byron better and I like the fact that if he's as successful as I think we ALL hope that he will be, he is young enough, that he will stick around long enough, so that we won't be having the "is he going to retire now" questions that we went through during Phil's entire 2nd tenure as the Lakers coach.

1) The championship thing sums up why its impossible to debate you on this. Your standards are irrational. If you judge everything based on if a guy wins a championship or not, you'd have like 3 guys you could hire and everyone else is the same because they haven't won a title (which is an insane thought process) There are tons of other variables that determine a coach's (and player's) value. All teams use them, some better than others. The Lakers use them. So don't act like the championship standard is the only standard and that's what you go by since that's what the Lakers use. Because that's false and it also reeks of that arrogant thing ignorant LA fans do when they talk basketball, the "We're the Lakers, we win championships so we know better" trump card. You aren't one of those fans. Yes, the Lakers want to win championships. But don't confuse that goal as the sole measure of how the organization, fans, anyone evaluates things.

2) By "never gotten a team" to the Finals did you mean just the Nuggets? Because Karl got the Sonics to the Finals so you're wrong on that. And don't dismiss the Nuggets FO ineptitude, they fucked up. The year they fired him, he did an excellent job with the team and lost in the playoffs because his best player tore his ACL right at the end of the season. Firing him was almost stupid as what the Kings have done this year.

3) You're not grasping the age factor. Teams evaluate themselves in 3 to 4 year chunks mostly due to that being how the free agent contracts are constructed, thus leading to roster turnover. Coaches factor into that as well. A guy like Karl would be no different. He's 63. 5 years is a long time NBA wise, plenty of time to improve, whatever so let's use that as his contract length for this example. At the end of that period, he's 68. Old, but not old enough to where he's no longer functional. He could go another 4 or 5 years. That takes him to 73, a whole 10 years from now. That's a long way off and AGES in NBA time. You don't sell yourself short on a good candidate just because he's in his early 60s. Worse come to worse, you hire him and after 4 or 5 years, he retires. But chances are he's left the team in a better spot and its a more attractive HC position. There's really no downside.

4) Good, I'm glad you see that Karl is a very good coach. But you are absolutely mistaken if you think Byron Scott is his equal or on par with him. If you like him better personally, that is fine. There are players that I like better personally that aren't as good overall as some that I don't. So you can like him but don't say its because Scott is better. He's a pretty subpar to average coach. If you think I'm grasping its because you don't know what you're talking about, like I'm not sure you really grasp the impact a good coach can have on players/talent over what just any old average suit can do. Because these are facts, bore out by numbers, from game film, etc and expressed as opinions from noted analysts, reporters, and fans alike. George Karl is a better coach than Byron Scott. Period.

5) And don't take this post the wrong way. I reread my posts sometimes and know that I probably come off as a dick in a way. I'm not trying to be that way or be malicious. This is all in good debating and fun.

 

[Retroram52]

5) And don't take this post the wrong way. I reread my posts sometimes and know that I probably come off as a dick in a way. I'm not trying to be that way or be malicious. This is all in good debating and fun.

LOL!! So what are you trying to be: Dick, no Dick, Malicious, No Malicious, Fun, No Fun?

 

[wildturkey]

5) And don't take this post the wrong way. I reread my posts sometimes and know that I probably come off as a dick in a way. I'm not trying to be that way or be malicious. This is all in good debating and fun.

LOL!! So what are you trying to be: Dick, no Dick, Malicious, No Malicious, Fun, No Fun?

Sorry you feel that way, but I'm not. I can see how people can read it certain ways when I type a lot in discussions because tone doesn't translate to print. That's why I included that last bit. No harm done. Some people take things personally. Just don't let your feathers get all ruffled over it.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Also, there's no doubt that luck has it's role in winning championships. As the late, great Chick Hearn used to say: "Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good and if you can be both, you might have something."

Just ask Vlade Divak about that shot Robert Horry got off against the Kings that year. Horry was lucky to get the ball Vlade tried to bat away in the final second of the game that cost them a trip to the finals I remember doing some audits in Sacramento a few years ago and told some one that from what I had seen it took Sacramento fans a few years to get over that. The guy I'm auditing says "WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT TOOK US A FEW YEARS? WE STILL HAVEN'T GOT OVER THAT"

 

[Retroram52]

Sorry you feel that way, but I'm not. I can see how people can read it certain ways when I type a lot in discussions because tone doesn't translate to print. That's why I included that last bit. No harm done. Some people take things personally. Just don't let your feathers get all ruffled over it.

What way? Just having fun as you stated.

 

[trojanfan12]

1) The championship thing sums up why its impossible to debate you on this. Your standards are irrational. If you judge everything based on if a guy wins a championship or not, you'd have like 3 guys you could hire and everyone else is the same because they haven't won a title (which is an insane thought process) There are tons of other variables that determine a coach's (and player's) value. All teams use them, some better than others. The Lakers use them. So don't act like the championship standard is the only standard and that's what you go by since that's what the Lakers use. Because that's false and it also reeks of that arrogant thing ignorant LA fans do when they talk basketball, the "We're the Lakers, we win championships so we know better" trump card. You aren't one of those fans. Yes, the Lakers want to win championships. But don't confuse that goal as the sole measure of how the organization, fans, anyone evaluates things.

2) By "never gotten a team" to the Finals did you mean just the Nuggets? Because Karl got the Sonics to the Finals so you're wrong on that. And don't dismiss the Nuggets FO ineptitude, they fucked up. The year they fired him, he did an excellent job with the team and lost in the playoffs because his best player tore his ACL right at the end of the season. Firing him was almost stupid as what the Kings have done this year.

3) You're not grasping the age factor. Teams evaluate themselves in 3 to 4 year chunks mostly due to that being how the free agent contracts are constructed, thus leading to roster turnover. Coaches factor into that as well. A guy like Karl would be no different. He's 63. 5 years is a long time NBA wise, plenty of time to improve, whatever so let's use that as his contract length for this example. At the end of that period, he's 68. Old, but not old enough to where he's no longer functional. He could go another 4 or 5 years. That takes him to 73, a whole 10 years from now. That's a long way off and AGES in NBA time. You don't sell yourself short on a good candidate just because he's in his early 60s. Worse come to worse, you hire him and after 4 or 5 years, he retires. But chances are he's left the team in a better spot and its a more attractive HC position. There's really no downside.

4) Good, I'm glad you see that Karl is a very good coach. But you are absolutely mistaken if you think Byron Scott is his equal or on par with him. If you like him better personally, that is fine. There are players that I like better personally that aren't as good overall as some that I don't. So you can like him but don't say its because Scott is better. He's a pretty subpar to average coach. If you think I'm grasping its because you don't know what you're talking about, like I'm not sure you really grasp the impact a good coach can have on players/talent over what just any old average suit can do. Because these are facts, bore out by numbers, from game film, etc and expressed as opinions from noted analysts, reporters, and fans alike. George Karl is a better coach than Byron Scott. Period.

5) And don't take this post the wrong way. I reread my posts sometimes and know that I probably come off as a dick in a way. I'm not trying to be that way or be malicious. This is all in good debating and fun.

1.) We've been over this before. If you don't like my standards. I really don't care. Championships are the standard the Lakers set. Not winning them gets Lakers coaches fired. I don't know if Scott is the answer or not any more than you know if Karl is or not. If you think I'm irrational, the I really don't give a fuck. Don't discuss it with me.

As for the rest of your post. It's all pure opinion, just like what I say about Scott. The difference is that you somehow think your opinion is fact. Bottom line is this: Byron Scott is the coach, whether you like it not and whether you agree with it or not. Your opinion doesn't mean anymore that mine does.

You think Karl's better coach, I disagree. I really don't give even half a fuck who you think is the better coach. Like I said, like it or not, Byron's the coach and no amount of you crying about it or insisting Karl is better is going to change that. That's the end of it.

As for coming off as a dick. It's what you do. I doubt you can help yourself.

 

[trojanfan12]

Just ask Vlade Divak about that shot Robert Horry got off against the Kings that year. Horry was lucky to get the ball Vlade tried to bat away in the final second of the game that cost them a trip to the finals I remember doing some audits in Sacramento a few years ago and told some one that from what I had seen it took Sacramento fans a few years to get over that. The guy I'm auditing says "WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT TOOK US A FEW YEARS? WE STILL HAVEN'T GOT OVER THAT"

I remember when that happened I laughed and said: "Vlade's still a Laker at heart."

 

[Retroram52]

Yea, Vlade later confessed he was always a Lakers guy no matter where he went. Now he heads up scouting Europe for the Lakers. Go figure.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

I remember when that happened I laughed and said: "Vlade's still a Laker at heart."

Vlade in my opinion was the biggest casualty of Magic Johnson leaving the games because he found out he was HIV positive. I say that because had Vlade had the opportunity to learn from Magic a few more years - he would have become one hell of a player and he still was a pretty damned good player. Just my opinion

 

[wildturkey]

1.) We've been over this before. If you don't like my standards. I really don't care. Championships are the standard the Lakers set. Not winning them gets Lakers coaches fired. I don't know if Scott is the answer or not any more than you know if Karl is or not. If you think I'm irrational, the I really don't give a fuck. Don't discuss it with me.

As for the rest of your post. It's all pure opinion, just like what I say about Scott. The difference is that you somehow think your opinion is fact. Bottom line is this: Byron Scott is the coach, whether you like it not and whether you agree with it or not. Your opinion doesn't mean anymore that mine does.

You think Karl's better coach, I disagree. I really don't give even half a fuck who you think is the better coach. Like I said, like it or not, Byron's the coach and no amount of you crying about it or insisting Karl is better is going to change that. That's the end of it.

As for coming off as a dick. It's what you do. I doubt you can help yourself.

No need to get all pissy about it. You can either talk about it or not. That's the point of sports message boards, to go back and forth talking about topics in sports. I'm basing my opinions of facts, stats, media columns, reports, etc. I use them to draw my own opinions and validate it. You have your opinions, some times you post what your reasoning is behind it, some times you don't. So that's the point of having the debate, to see what your reasonings are and see what's what. That's what how it works for everyone. That's how you know if people actually know what they are talking about so you can see if you can learn something from them and to challenge your own thought processes. Someone can have the opinion that "Jordan Farmar is the best point guard in Lakers history behind Magic Johnson". They'd be wrong of course but that's their opinion and it'd be nice to know their reasoning behind it. Whatever the statement is you aught to be able back up why you feel that way and if someone comes along and shows a case of why that isn't so, a person should be able to learn from it or explain why that response isn't valid. What's wrong with that? Don't take it personal. That's why I posted the last part because tone of voice doesn't translate to print. Ever watch talking head shows or listen to sports radio? The talks can get going pretty heavy but you know from tone of voice its just a robust discussion. That can get lost in just plain text.

And FWIW, I think see what your saying on the championship standard thing. This point of contention issue is on me because I didn't do enough to explain what I meant. I'm referring more to variables in how you evaluate coaches ie what's their style, how do they develop players, game management, team experience over their career (ie situations they've been in), wins/losses, championship experience, personality, etc etc. I don't believe you meant you only value the championship part, which I initially thought, correct?