Time to trade away assets for picks

[True Lakers Fan]

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!

Well if history repeats itself, I don't think we have a long wait, but it was ten years in between the Magic Johnson era and the Shaq+Kobe era, and it was about six years in between Kobe's third and fifth championship. It's already been four and most people I hear believes the Lakers are two or three years from just making the playoffs. I think with the right pieces the Lakers will bounce back into the playoffs next season, but we Lakers fans wants titles - Anything less is unacceptable. My main point is that even with Jerry Buss and Jerry West - the Lakers fans had to wait and after Shaq left we had to wait again. The only question is how long the wait will be, but I am pretty sure that we all agree that the Lakers will be back eventually - unlike the Clippers, Phoenix Suns, and a dozen others that have never been there at all

 

[trojanfan12]

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?

Correct. As you point out, if getting a coach who has already won championships is the criteria, there aren't a whole lot of those available. That's why we can't really say if Byron or Karl or anyone else is the right guy and why I'm not going to judge Byron until he actually has a roster that is capable of winning
some games.

Part of the reason that I like Byron is because he's a younger coach and the Lakers are going young by trying to rebuild through the draft and getting younger FA's. I believe Byron, if successful will stick around a lot longer than Karl would if he were successful. I'd like to see them get a situation like Popovich where they have a coach who is here for over 10 years. I don't see that happening with Karl.

I think Karl would have been a great choice if the Lakers had landed some vets in the last FA class who could have been paired with Kobe for one last title run and then go into rebuild mode. But for the direction they are going with getting younger, I believe Byron is the right choice.

As I said, whether we agree on Karl or not, Byron is the coach and I expect the Lakers will be fair with him as they always have been with coaches. They aren't going to hold a roster that can't win against him (heck, they weren't even going to fire D'Antoni because they felt he hadn't had a fair shot). They will work to get him a roster that can win and when they do, they'll give him some time to win a title. If he doesn't, they'll let him go and bring in someone else.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Correct. As you point out, if getting a coach who has already won championships is the criteria, there aren't a whole lot of those available. That's why we can't really say if Byron or Karl or anyone else is the right guy and why I'm not going to judge Byron until he actually has a roster that is capable of winning
some games.

Part of the reason that I like Byron is because he's a younger coach and the Lakers are going young by trying to rebuild through the draft and getting younger FA's. I believe Byron, if successful will stick around a lot longer than Karl would if he were successful. I'd like to see them get a situation like Popovich where they have a coach who is here for over 10 years. I don't see that happening with Karl.

I think Karl would have been a great choice if the Lakers had landed some vets in the last FA class who could have been paired with Kobe for one last title run and then go into rebuild mode. But for the direction they are going with getting younger, I believe Byron is the right choice.

As I said, whether we agree on Karl or not, Byron is the coach and I expect the Lakers will be fair with him as they always have been with coaches. They aren't going to hold a roster that can't win against him (heck, they weren't even going to fire D'Antoni because they felt he hadn't had a fair shot). They will work to get him a roster that can win and when they do, they'll give him some time to win a title. If he doesn't, they'll let him go and bring in someone else.

My main reason for liking Scott over Karl is health and age. I'm sorry that George Karl has had health issues and I wish him the best, but the fact remains that he had cancer and had a real scare to the point that he missed critical playoffs one year. He is 63 years old in addition to that poor health. Is he a better coach? Maybe, but I think what he did best was capitalize on the altitude in Denver to win more games then the average team would. I tracked his record for about a third way into the season in one of the final years he was in Denver and most of the teams playing Denver were on the second night of a back to back games or in the middle of a road trip and most of the teams were too tired to make that adjustment. It normally takes 48 hours to adjust to the altitude and that's tough to do when your team gets into Denver at 2 am and then has to play 12 hours later. That's not exactly a blue print for the rest of the league and his ability to duplicate that success may be difficult - It might turn out that in other teams he is just as shitty as D'antoni

 

[wildturkey]

Correct. As you point out, if getting a coach who has already won championships is the criteria, there aren't a whole lot of those available. That's why we can't really say if Byron or Karl or anyone else is the right guy and why I'm not going to judge Byron until he actually has a roster that is capable of winning
some games.

Part of the reason that I like Byron is because he's a younger coach and the Lakers are going young by trying to rebuild through the draft and getting younger FA's. I believe Byron, if successful will stick around a lot longer than Karl would if he were successful. I'd like to see them get a situation like Popovich where they have a coach who is here for over 10 years. I don't see that happening with Karl.

I think Karl would have been a great choice if the Lakers had landed some vets in the last FA class who could have been paired with Kobe for one last title run and then go into rebuild mode. But for the direction they are going with getting younger, I believe Byron is the right choice.

As I said, whether we agree on Karl or not, Byron is the coach and I expect the Lakers will be fair with him as they always have been with coaches. They aren't going to hold a roster that can't win against him (heck, they weren't even going to fire D'Antoni because they felt he hadn't had a fair shot). They will work to get him a roster that can win and when they do, they'll give him some time to win a title. If he doesn't, they'll let him go and bring in someone else.

Here's the crux of everything. You're viewing this on what Scott might do. I'm talking about the past and how that defines who Karl and Scott, etc are as a coach. How can you look at what Karl has done and his resume and look at what Byron has done and say they are equal or at the very least that Karl is no better? Everything else you said below the bolded part about why you like the fit is perfectly valid. That's fine. I don't believe I ever disputed that. If I did, sorry, that's not the intent. I'm focusing Scott's coaching ability vs Karl's or anyone else's.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Here's the crux of everything. You're viewing this on what Scott might do. I'm talking about the past and how that defines who Karl and Scott, etc are as a coach. How can you look at what Karl has done and his resume and look at what Byron has done and say they are equal or at the very least that Karl is no better? Everything else you said below the bolded part about why you like the fit is perfectly valid. That's fine. I don't believe I ever disputed that. If I did, sorry, that's not the intent. I'm focusing Scott's coaching ability vs Karl's or anyone else's.

Just out of curiosity what is on Karl's resume that you believe trumps Scotts resume?

As a player Scott has three championship titles in 1985, 1987 and 1988 and Karl has ZERO

As a coach Karl has coached 11 teams, won NBA coach in 2013 and 4 times NBA all star head coach - but again - ZERO CHAMPIONSHIPS and according to my sources - never been to the finals

Scott in the mean time has coached five teams with the Lakers being the fifth and current one, one a coach of the year award in 2008 and was head coach of 2 all star games.

I am missing what part of this makes Karl a better coach. In fact Scott with less experience won his coach of the year award five years sooner

 

[trojanfan12]

Here's the crux of everything. You're viewing this on what Scott might do. I'm talking about the past and how that defines who Karl and Scott, etc are as a coach. How can you look at what Karl has done and his resume and look at what Byron has done and say they are equal or at the very least that Karl is no better? Everything else you said below the bolded part about why you like the fit is perfectly valid. That's fine. I don't believe I ever disputed that. If I did, sorry, that's not the intent. I'm focusing Scott's coaching ability vs Karl's or anyone else's.

Because I look beyond the regular season record for one. People look at the records without looking at the teams that the coach was handed. When was Karl ever handed a mess like the Cavs team that Byron was handed. When did he ever have to coach a team like our current Lakers?

As I pointed out, when Scott had teams that could get to the finals, he got them there. Chris Paul credits Byron with much of his development as does Kyrie Irving. Jordan Clarkson seems to be coming along nicely as well.

Karl has been handed much better teams than Scott, yet he's made the finals exactly one time. He coached the Sonics when they had Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp and the Lakers weren't a threat. He made it to the finals one time despite being favored to come out of the west most of those years. He did, however, manage in '93-'94, to have the best regular season record in the NBA and become the first #1 seed to lose to a #8 seed.

His playoff record was even worse in Denver. His Nuggets teams made the playoffs 9 times and advanced out of the first round exactly one time, 2008-09 when they made it to the Western Conference finals losing in 6 games to the Lakers. They lost game 6 by 27 points.

Like I said, very good regular season coach, not so much in the playoffs. Just like Del Harris.

 

[Rambunctious]

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.

In the off-season, things are going to get very, very interesting.

On that we can agree...:rollseyes:

 

[trojanfan12]

On that we can agree...:rollseyes:

What's really going to be interesting is the cap is supposed to go up for 2016. I think we could see a lot of 2015 FA's signing 1 year deals and then going back into the FA market in 2016.

 

[lakersrule]

Just out of curiosity what is on Karl's resume that you believe trumps Scotts resume?

As a player Scott has three championship titles in 1985, 1987 and 1988 and Karl has ZERO

As a coach Karl has coached 11 teams, won NBA coach in 2013 and 4 times NBA all star head coach - but again - ZERO CHAMPIONSHIPS and according to my sources - never been to the finals

Scott in the mean time has coached five teams with the Lakers being the fifth and current one, one a coach of the year award in 2008 and was head coach of 2 all star games.

I am missing what part of this makes Karl a better coach. In fact Scott with less experience won his coach of the year award five years sooner

Find new sources, like maybe basketball-reference.com

 

[Retroram52]

Well, the Karl versus Scott debate can get a new wrinkle. Karl is headed to the Kings to take over for Ty Corbin. Apparently Shaq, who is part owner of the Kings, agreed Karl was the man. Stories are on most sports venues.

 

[lakersrule]

What's really going to be interesting is the cap is supposed to go up for 2016. I think we could see a lot of 2015 FA's signing 1 year deals and then going back into the FA market in 2016.

That just may be the case. It'll come down to a free agent's risk level.

I've said it before, but whatever the Lakers do this summer, they need to leave enough cap space for a possible Kevin Durant signing in the summer of 2016. I think other teams will be higher on his list, but the cap room needs to be there just in case.

 

[OutlawImmortal]

According to my sources, strawberry is the best flavor of ice cream. - TLF

 

[lakersrule]

Well, the Karl versus Scott debate can get a new wrinkle. Karl is headed to the Kings to take over for Ty Corbin. Apparently Shaq, who is part owner of the Kings, agreed Karl was the man. Stories are on most sports venues.

It's official now? Did he agree to cherry-pick now and then to make the owner happy?

 

[lakersrule]

According to my sources, strawberry is the best flavor of ice cream. - TLF

Anyone who thinks strawberry is the best flavor of ice cream should be shot

 

[trojanfan12]

That just may be the case. It'll come down to a free agent's risk level.

I've said it before, but whatever the Lakers do this summer, they need to leave enough cap space for a possible Kevin Durant signing in the summer of 2016. I think other teams will be higher on his list, but the cap room needs to be there just in case.

Kobe is set to retire, so they should be in good shape with his contract coming off the books.

 

[Retroram52]

Hubie Brown commented yesterday that he believes at some point the Lakers have to abandon the strategy that partially contributed to where they are now. That strategy being chasing after so-called big name FAs that were developed by someone else.

His assertion and remedy was that the Lakers need to replace the big FA pick-up with developing their own drafted players. He stated during the game that they need to support this by keeping their number ones every year similar to what the logo has built in Golden State.

Granted FAs don't normally cost picks but his point was that the development of their own drafted players is better in the long run because the players are younger and at the beginning of their careers instead of FAs that are beginning to enter the end of their careers.

GS is a powerhouse consisting primarily of drafted, home-developed players with some FAs pieces and they have avoided going after the big-name FAs on that squad. Right now, they hold the best record in the NBA or nearly so. Atlanta has done the same and those two clubs are one-two in the NBA.

Maybe that is better approach than looking forward to the next big FA class.

 

[wildturkey]

Because I look beyond the regular season record for one. People look at the records without looking at the teams that the coach was handed. When was Karl ever handed a mess like the Cavs team that Byron was handed. When did he ever have to coach a team like our current Lakers?

As I pointed out, when Scott had teams that could get to the finals, he got them there. Chris Paul credits Byron with much of his development as does Kyrie Irving. Jordan Clarkson seems to be coming along nicely as well.

Karl has been handed much better teams than Scott, yet he's made the finals exactly one time. He coached the Sonics when they had Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp and the Lakers weren't a threat. He made it to the finals one time despite being favored to come out of the west most of those years. He did, however, manage in '93-'94, to have the best regular season record in the NBA and become the first #1 seed to lose to a #8 seed.

His playoff record was even worse in Denver. His Nuggets teams made the playoffs 9 times and advanced out of the first round exactly one time, 2008-09 when they made it to the Western Conference finals losing in 6 games to the Lakers. They lost game 6 by 27 points.

Like I said, very good regular season coach, not so much in the playoffs. Just like Del Harris.

So you just overlook 75% of what makes a coach a good coach? I'm just going to chalk this up to you not really knowing what Karl has done and the impact he's had throughout his career since you didn't even know he had gone to the Finals before (TLF did that too somehow). Plus, if you really do look beyond just a regular season win/loss, you'd know that Karl various teams actually played various styles, a true sign that his coaching is skillful enough to blend to the talent around him. That gets lost if you're just looking at postseason records. So you're fine with overlooking all of that, focusing on Karl postseason record and saying he got handed every good team. But you're totally cool with dismissing Scott's entire tenure in Cleveland, where he had young talent to develop , and was a total disaster (something that should be a red flag for Lakers fans) and holding up Scott's success when he was "handed" talent in a trade for Jason Kidd and then later after the team traded for CP3. So that seems like a double standard. One guy wins when he has talent and (even though both reached the same pinnacle if you only measure post season success) which is good and just needs more talent in the future. The other guy needs talent and is overrated because he only wins when the talent is there so that's bad.

But that's cool because you just need more talent, right? Ok. Now think about this for second. So if you give a coach more talent, how do you know if he's a good coach or if its just the talent that gets there? Look back over the history of the game and you'll see a superstar alone gets you about 40 wins regardless of who is coaching or whatever else is around. So if by some chance LA lands one next year and goes 42-40 is that because Scott's coaching got better or did the roster just get a talent upgrade. Here's another thought. Watch the Thunder. Immensely talented. But if you follow the Xs and Os of the game you can see that over the last couple of years Scott Brooks is actually holding them back. They run far too many Isos and he plays really dumb line ups. But would you consider Brooks a good coach because he's made the Finals, etc? If you emphasis that post season bit and not the total package, you're excluding basically everything that factors into determining a coach's value.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

It's not that I don't think Karl is a talented coach Turkey, and I thought Karl had been to the finals, once but couldn't find anything about it in his resume, but he has had some serious health issues and he is 63 years old. Personally I would rather see the Lakers invest in a coach with some youth and talent and since Scott has won three championships with the Lakers, has the backing and assistance of Magic Johnson and James Worthy I believe he has the potential to go further than Karl could. In addition Karl has coached for quite a few different teams which kind of sends up a red flag as to why has he been fired so many times. Either way - it's going to be a few years any ways before the Lakers team is going to be good enough that a better coach would make a difference, so the Lakers don't need that great of a coach right now and I do believe Scott will take us to the promised land if he lasts long enough and doesn't get fired

 

[trojanfan12]

So you just overlook 75% of what makes a coach a good coach? I'm just going to chalk this up to you not really knowing what Karl has done and the impact he's had throughout his career since you didn't even know he had gone to the Finals before (TLF did that too somehow). Plus, if you really do look beyond just a regular season win/loss, you'd know that Karl various teams actually played various styles, a true sign that his coaching is skillful enough to blend to the talent around him. That gets lost if you're just looking at postseason records. So you're fine with overlooking all of that, focusing on Karl postseason record and saying he got handed every good team. But you're totally cool with dismissing Scott's entire tenure in Cleveland, where he had young talent to develop , and was a total disaster (something that should be a red flag for Lakers fans) and holding up Scott's success when he was "handed" talent in a trade for Jason Kidd and then later after the team traded for CP3. So that seems like a double standard. One guy wins when he has talent and (even though both reached the same pinnacle if you only measure post season success) which is good and just needs more talent in the future. The other guy needs talent and is overrated because he only wins when the talent is there so that's bad.

But that's cool because you just need more talent, right? Ok. Now think about this for second. So if you give a coach more talent, how do you know if he's a good coach or if its just the talent that gets there? Look back over the history of the game and you'll see a superstar alone gets you about 40 wins regardless of who is coaching or whatever else is around. So if by some chance LA lands one next year and goes 42-40 is that because Scott's coaching got better or did the roster just get a talent upgrade. Here's another thought. Watch the Thunder. Immensely talented. But if you follow the Xs and Os of the game you can see that over the last couple of years Scott Brooks is actually holding them back. They run far too many Isos and he plays really dumb line ups. But would you consider Brooks a good coach because he's made the Finals, etc? If you emphasis that post season bit and not the total package, you're excluding basically everything that factors into determining a coach's value.

I guess you missed the part about the types of teams they've each been handed. Scott has been handed shit, but has managed to develop the young players. His teams in Cleveland improved slightly each season.

Not sure how things can be made more clear for you. Coaches don't win without talent. Period. Phil Jackson has 11 rings and he's not winning with the roster the Lakers have or the one's that Scott had in Cleveland, so Karl or anyone else, isn't likely to do much, if any better.

Here's a difference between Scott and Karl. When Scott had a team that was good enough to get to the finals, he got them there twice. Karl got their once even though in Seattle he had one of the most talented teams in the league. In Denver, he got out of the first round once in 9 tries......once. You're not going to win championships with a coach who can't even get out of the 1st round.

I'm done discussing this with you. You can post another novella if you want, I won't waste my time reading. I'm going to agree to disagree. You can do as you wish.

End of the day, whether you like it or agree with it or not, Byron Scott is the Lakers head coach. The Lakers will eventually get him a better roster than he has now and he will either get the expected results or he will be fired and the Lakers will bring in someone else. It's what they've always done and I don't expect that to change. Debating about who is or might be better is pointless because they aren't the coach, he is.

In short, I'm bored with both of us posting essentially the same shit over and over.

 

[wildturkey]

I guess you missed the part about the types of teams they've each been handed. Scott has been handed shit, but has managed to develop the young players. His teams in Cleveland improved slightly each season.

Not sure how things can be made more clear for you. Coaches don't win without talent. Period. Phil Jackson has 11 rings and he's not winning with the roster the Lakers have or the one's that Scott had in Cleveland, so Karl or anyone else, isn't likely to do much, if any better.

Here's a difference between Scott and Karl. When Scott had a team that was good enough to get to the finals, he got them there twice. Karl got their once even though in Seattle he had one of the most talented teams in the league. In Denver, he got out of the first round once in 9 tries......once. You're not going to win championships with a coach who can't even get out of the 1st round.

I'm done discussing this with you. You can post another novella if you want, I won't waste my time reading. I'm going to agree to disagree. You can do as you wish.

End of the day, whether you like it or agree with it or not, Byron Scott is the Lakers head coach. The Lakers will eventually get him a better roster than he has now and he will either get the expected results or he will be fired and the Lakers will bring in someone else. It's what they've always done and I don't expect that to change. Debating about who is or might be better is pointless because they aren't the coach, he is.

In short, I'm bored with both of us posting essentially the same shit over and over.

You backed yourself into a corner by constantly referring to the post season thing. If we're going in circles its because you can't find a way out. You just keep ignoring every thing that isn't playoff related (because it bunks your position). It's true, no championship team is without talent. That's not even really in play here. But you know what also happens? Coaches can win games with subpar talent, and you miss that because you look past all that regular season stuff. There are countless examples of this happening throughout the league but I won't go into them all since you're so bored. Karl has done that before, Scott hasn't. You're only valuing the post season. Scott's no better there despite what you think. Scott: 2 Finals appearances, 1 other series win; Karl: 1 Finals appearance, 3 conference final appearances (with 3 different teams), numerous other series wins. Most would say Karl's playoff resume is better still but let's say those 2 Finals appearances by Scott hold more weight and balance it out. Now they're even but when you look at everything else, its pretty clear that Karl is the superior coach. You don't get over 1000 wins (60% winning percentage) the NBA by accident or just because you got handed everything. (Meanwhile Scott's winning % was under .500 even before Cleveland)

You think this is all pointless because Scott is the current Lakers coach? It's not. I don't care that he's coach. That decision has already been made. That's not even the genesis of the debate. It started because I pointed out to you that getting better talent isn't always an indicator of being a good coach and it led into everything else. Karl came into from other posters and you shrugging him off so it turned into who is the better coach in general. There's just no reasonable way anyone can look at the two and say Scott is better. You can support Scott as the Lakers coach all you want, but he's not better than Karl.