Could another team follow the same steps as the Lakers did? (LONG)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Topic HOF This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Wolverine
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Mar 2004
Posts: 7846
Location: San Jose, CA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:36 am    Post subject:

If you go back a couple of years, Mitch actually acquired Mo Evans from the Pistons for a second-round pick (Cheikh Samb) in 2006. That was a heist in itself! In the grand scheme of things, we gave up Brian Cook plus a second-rounder to get Trevor freakin' Ariza!!

Not bad, Mitch, not bad.

What this really shows is Mitch paying attention to other teams' rosters. The only reason Evans came that cheap was that Joe Dumars wanted to give more minutes to Carlos Delfino. Both he and Mo were playing behind Tayshaun and there wasn't enough playing time for both of them. Mitch swooped in took advantage. I think we had a trade-exception at the time that allowed us to absorb Mo's contract which was probably one of the reasons Joe agreed to do the deal. Next, same situation in Orlando. Hedo and Rashard were splitting the SF minutes and Trevor was limited to garbage time. Kupchak sees this, swoops in once again and convinces Otis that what he needs is a big-man 3-point shooter to take advantage of Howard's dominance in the paint. In both situations Mitch acted quickly (draft day for Mo and early November for Trevor) -- well before most GMs saw what he saw.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
limchrc
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 11477

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:24 am    Post subject:

Great read. Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13708

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:44 am    Post subject:

To answer the OP's question, yes...I think another team can do what LA did. I say yes because IMO the whole thing that turned the tables was the Gasol gift. I'm not saying the other moves (Ariza, Fisher, Brown, Bynum) weren't vital...but they mean nada without Gasol. While I feel the trade was highway robbery, I still give your GM and ownership credit for putting winning above $$, as they knew they were going to lux tax land with that deal. The Cavs had the chance to add a significant player last Feb by cashing in on the Wally contract, and they stood pat. The Celtics could have spent more $$ on some of their pieces last summer and they stood pat. I believe the Blazers could have done something with the LaFrentz contract but they didn't. Props to LA on that one. I also give the GM credit for not panicking and shipping his guys off (Kobe, Odom)...but instead building around them.

So with all of the cost cutting that is going on because of the economy and the dreams of 2010, a few teams that aren't "too far" away could land a key piece like Gasol (like him, not necessarily that good but still a key player) as long as they are willing to make the financial commitments that LA is making now, and that Boston made in 08. The Cavs have $19M in expirings (Wallace and Pavlovic), and $17M in expiring player options (Big Z and Varejao). They really have no excuse to not try to bring another piece in considering Lebron can bounce if they aren't winning. My Rockets have about $28M in expirings from dudes who weren't core players last season (T-Mac, Cook, Barry). We really have no excuse either since Yao may have a short window. Portland has about $9M in expirings (Blake & Outlaw) and enough young talent on cheap deals with team options and the like, so they could always be a major player if they chose. The Wizards have around $20M in expirings (Thomas, James, Haywood) and the #5 pick, and they could have a Nuggets like turnaround with a key addition (personal opinion). If the Celtics and Spurs decide to use their MLE's then they may be able to add some key pieces that can't get big $$ elsewhere (i.e. Artest, Sheed, etc).

So this summer will let us know if these franchises really want to win like LA, or if they are just pretending....because there seems to be a lot of impact players available (Amare, Prince, Hamilton, Shaq, maybe Nash, etc).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sister Golden Hair
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 01 May 2001
Posts: 15872

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:51 pm    Post subject:

You can't step into the same river twice, my man, no matter how hard you try.

SGH
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
re4ee
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 12237

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 8:54 am    Post subject:

What? No mention of the willingness of Dr.Buss to accept paying the luxury taxes? Key to getting Gasol, Memphis was in cost cutting mode, while Buss was willing to bite the bulet, even in a collapsing economy.

And, of course, the good Dr. putting his trust in Mitch while a very large contingent of Laker faithful were storming the castle with torches and pitchforks.

No entirely a "lucky streak", more like a master poker player "knowint when to hold'em and when to fold 'em.
_________________
<
"Ev'rybody's got somethin' to hide, 'cept for me and my monkey"
<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ice516tea
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 18 Oct 2006
Posts: 205

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:07 pm    Post subject:

Dennis_D wrote:
Lakers#1Team wrote:
How lucky were the Celtics to get Garnett

It wasn't lucky, it's was an inside heist. The Lakers offered anybody not named Kobe. Say Odom, Bynum, Turiaf and Farmar, plus the #19 pick in the 2007 draft and their #1 from the 2009 draft. The Celtics offered Jefferson (comparable to Bynum), an expiring contract in Theo Ratliff, their 2009 draft pick and then none of their top 6 players. We are talking bench players off a 24-58 team. There was a Minny #1 pick traded back, but with the restrictions on the pick it was most likely going to become a second rounder in like 2012. McHale did Ainge a favor by taking the bench players as it freed up cap room for the Celtics to sign veteran free agents. Of the three other players that Minny got, Ryan Gomes was the best. He was an undersized PF that had a PER of 13.7 before being traded and a PER of 12.5 last season. Sebastian Telfair had flopped with Portland and Boston. He had a PER of 8.6 before being trade and a PER of 10.8 last season. Gerald Green was so bad that Minny didn't pick up his option and he left after 29 bad games.

I don't know if McHale decide to place his loyalty to the Celtics ahead of the his loyalty to the T-Wolves or if he just refused to deal with the hated Lakers and the Celtics were his only other choice, but there is no way anybody can think the Celtics' offer was anywhere as good as the Lakers' offer. Now, if the Celtics had offered Jefferson, Perkins and Rondo I wouldn't have anything to say, but the Celtics wouldn't have won the championship.


mchale said he would reward garnett for all the years he put in with minny,so he shipped him to boston because ainge was a celtic in position to restore their team pride...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aloha
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Dec 2001
Posts: 7612
Location: Honolulu->LA

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:36 am    Post subject:

Wolverine wrote:
If you go back a couple of years, Mitch actually acquired Mo Evans from the Pistons for a second-round pick (Cheikh Samb) in 2006. That was a heist in itself! In the grand scheme of things, we gave up Brian Cook plus a second-rounder to get Trevor freakin' Ariza!!

Not bad, Mitch, not bad.

What this really shows is Mitch paying attention to other teams' rosters. The only reason Evans came that cheap was that Joe Dumars wanted to give more minutes to Carlos Delfino. Both he and Mo were playing behind Tayshaun and there wasn't enough playing time for both of them. Mitch swooped in took advantage. I think we had a trade-exception at the time that allowed us to absorb Mo's contract which was probably one of the reasons Joe agreed to do the deal. Next, same situation in Orlando. Hedo and Rashard were splitting the SF minutes and Trevor was limited to garbage time. Kupchak sees this, swoops in once again and convinces Otis that what he needs is a big-man 3-point shooter to take advantage of Howard's dominance in the paint. In both situations Mitch acted quickly (draft day for Mo and early November for Trevor) -- well before most GMs saw what he saw.


Bingo
Completely agree...

No Playing Time = No Pts/No Reb/ No Steals...
--- Logjams aka Think about Eddie Jones had Kobe behind him..,

I also give credit to LAL for coaching/developing players:
Mo, Trev, Madsen
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Worthy42
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 19952

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:35 pm    Post subject:

If you think about it, it was basically Kobe-Lamar.

Then Mitch brought in the pieces that completed the puzzle throughout...

Drafting Bynum

Bringing back Fisher

Gasol Trade

Ariza Trade

Finally getting Shanwow.

He solidified our roster with the key parts in areas where we needed help bad.

The key thing is aside from Fisher all those parts are still just peaking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dennis_D
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 2017
Location: North Dallas

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:51 pm    Post subject:

Sky wrote:
Superb post Dennis.

Thanks!

Sky wrote:
1. Hall of Famer - credit: West

Agreed

Sky wrote:
2. Draft promising center - credit: Lester-Jimmy-Kupchak in that order. Lester is the one that saw the talent potential and pushed for it.

We have beat this horse to death so I'll just say we disagree

Sky wrote:
3. Pau - credit: Dr. Buss, no other owner was willing to take all that salary on.

I disagree. New York and Portland appear to have no budget restrictions. Cuban would have done it. Pau is not overpaid for how good he is and he didn't blow up the Lakers salary structure - the Lakers last season were still #8 in terms of payroll. Mitch had the pieces that Memphis wanted and was able to pull it off in his silent way before the rest of the league had an inkling of what was going down.

Sky wrote:
4. Fisher - credit: Larry Miller and Fisher. Very classy move by Miller. RIP.

It was a classy move by Larry Miller, but I think it was a move he was happy to make. Fisher was their starting SG that season, but he put up horrid numbers (38.2% shooting, 30.8% from 3). The only reason he was starting was that C.J. Miles (the initial starter) at 19 and Ronnie Brewer at 21 were too raw and Giricek (the second starter) wasn't up to the job. However, Miller probably thought Ronnie Brewer was ready to start for the '07-'08 season (he would up starting every game he played in the '07-'08 season and put up a PER of 18.4). That left Miller stuck paying Fisher $22M over 3 years for a back up combo guard when he had plenty of cheaper options already on the bench. So my guess would be that he said all the right things about how the Jazz would miss Derek when Derek asked to be released from his contract, but started turning cartwheels once Derek left his office.

I thought Kupchak signing Fisher was an obvious move to make, but there were LOTS of people who either thought the Lakers paid way too much or who flat out didn't want Fisher on the roster. In Septmeber of '07, I wrote a post Fisher was a very good signing!!! that drew 553 replies, most of which disagreed with me.

Sky wrote:
5. Ariza - credit: Mitch.

You can claim it's not hard to get a defense first 3 but that trade was a ski mask job

Nobody thought so at the time. My impression is that it was considered a minor trade, a "pass the trash" trade. The Daily Dime had it as their #3 story of the day behind fans chanting "Fire Isiah" and Joey Crawford's first game reffing the Spurs since his blow up with Duncan.

Sky wrote:
It's not hard to get a defense first 3 but it is hard to get a young athletic long defense first 3. Clubs typically refuse to let a young athlete go. Thankfully for us Otis Smith was willing. Oops.

New York traded Ariza more or less as throw in. Bruce Bowen bounced around between 4 teams in 5 seasons before he wound up with the Spurs. Ime Udoka has played for 4 teams in 5 seasons. It's my impression that defensive specialists at the 3 only stick on teams that have enough offensive firepower from other positions. On the other end, the one dimensional Jason Kapono signed a 4 year, $24M contract.

Sky wrote:
[The Ariza trade] represented a sea change in Kupchak's approach. He dealt offense-first duplication for defense-first athleticism. First time Mitch ever did that. And look at the results. That was proof of Kupchak finally valuing the speed, athleticsm, defense skillset and seeing the need to fill that roster crater.
:
Kupchak was content to acquire offense first defense last in the draft and free agency for years, it's when he started valuing physcial skillsets and 2-way potential that the Laker fate changed. Bynum. Ariza. Shannon. Then mix that with leadership from Fisher, Kobe maturing, Gasol making everything better and it fell into place.

Mitch learned the truth - that balance wins championships. Offense-defense, youth-leadership, inside-outside, athleticism-iq, physical-tri fit. His early years were offense, outside and iq tri fits, then balance was found when they finally valued the physcial skills and added defense, youth and athleticism. Balance won the ring.

Talent won the ring, primarily Kobe and Gasol. Bynum and Shannon didn't make huge contributions this playoff run. Fisher and Odom contributed much more than they did. Ariza did make a big contribution, but it was because his offense took a huge leap since he was acquired.

I always get the impression that you see Kupchak as having been a bad GM, then one day he has an epiphany, starts "valuing the speed, athleticsm, defense skillset" and, poof!, the Lakers are in the NBA Finals. I see him as being very consistent, doing the 7 things I mentioned here for his whole career. Yes, he drafted Bynum. Then he signed Radmanovic, drafted Farmar over James White and signed Fisher. Yes, he acquired Ariza. Then he got Gasol, who had great offensive skills but lacked defensive toughness. To me, the Lakers aren't a validation of your personnel philosophy - it's a repudiation of it. But everyone has their own opinion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sky
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Apr 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Up

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:34 pm    Post subject:

Dennis - A repudiation? Not at all. Until they found balance nothing. Lottery, first round exit, first round exit. Bynum and Gasol. Finals loss. Ariza and Brown. Finals win.

Yes that's exactly what I think, Kupchak shifted his mindset, he learned. He was a bad GM, focused exclusively on one half of the equation. Offense, hoop iq and tri skills. Missing in action: speed, defense, athleticism. Once they get balance they get a ring. Not a coincidence Dennis, spin it all you want but they did not succeed until they got balance. Until the defense was good enough to win a championship. Until they could win playoff games based on their performance from either end. The more ways you can win the more ways you do win.

On Gasol, Chicago was talking trade with Memphis all the time, offered more talent than LA. What Heisley wanted was someone willing to take on Pau in exchange for all last years. No one else in the league was willing to do that but Dr. Buss.

Give Mitch credit for creativity in putting it together, particularly McKie, but without Buss being willing to move all those last years for a long term max K it doesn't happen. Buss took on over 49 million in new salary in that deal. And he doesn't deserve the primary props? Sure he does.

Chicago's offers avoided last years, every rumored deal included young talent and a Bulls bad contract. Portland, Dallas and New York could have gotten involved but chose not to. They didn't want to make a 0 for 49 swap. You are looking at it as salary in salary out no change. But the difference is expiring contracts for long term max. The difference is 49 million dollars. A difference only Buss was willing to pay.

On Bynum, Lester is the one that identified the talent and made the recommendation. Buss himself gives credit to Jimmy as pushing hardest that "we have to pick this kid." Sorry but I don't see how Kupchak can be placed ahead of either of them.

Fisher agreed, it was also convenient for Utah. And yes I was one of those who had zero interest in a Fisher reunion, natch. But I was not one of those saying Ariza was a lateral move. You kidding, that's my dream deal - gunner matadors out, speed, athleticism, defense in. My opinion of Kupchak changed on the spot.

As for this year's finals, you honestly think defense wasn't of major impact? That the offense carried them? Look at what Ariza did to Hedo in the last two games. The all out effort in rotate and recover. Ariza had great value for his defense alone (Denver anybody?) and the offense was a welcome bonus. But it's his defense that was vital.

You worshnip at the throne of offense, I worship at the throne of balance. Never the twain shall meet, nor agree. In my opinion without balance you lose unless what you have on one end is unstoppably dominant. Detroit's defense in 2004 as the most painful example. To have the best chance at rings you must have balance . And until you do, rings are incredibly difficult. This championship was total validation of my balance credo, not repudiation. They did it your way the prior year, we only need offense. They lost. They did it my way this year, balanced roster, team knowing they had to bring it on D to get over the top. Championship.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sister Golden Hair
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 01 May 2001
Posts: 15872

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:52 pm    Post subject:

Defense won the finals, and carried them against Denver, as well. The fact that this team plays beautiful offense shouldn't disguise the fact that the D took a giant leap forward. And Shannon DID make an impact through the play-offs, just not in the finals (because of limited playing time). But the guy was big against Utah and Denver, in particular (remember a couple of key stops against Chauncey?). And Bynum? I thought Bynum was instrumental, because even with limited run he provided a presence. Whenever he sat other teams teed off at the rack. And he also played enough to allow pau to conserve energy for when he had to guard Howard.

As Sky said, the light went on in Mitch's head: Ariza and Shannon (throw in Mbenga and Powell, too, for that matter) are acquisitions that are valued as much for what they can do on defense as for what they do on offense. Everyone was especially gratified when it turned out that Shannon and Ariza, in particular, could develope a nice little niche on offense as well. That was gravy.

Just think back to the days of Brian Cook (BRIAN COOK!) as your starting 4, or Walton as your starting 3.

The new guys bring it on D.

And the team won the ring when they collectively upgraded their defense either through new personnel, or because guys that were here starting playing D at a MUCH HIGHER level (think about the nice job Luke did on Melo, or the GREAT job Pau did on Howard (with some help, of course).

It was D. It will be D again next year. And the year after that.

Great offense is the baseline for this team when you have so many weapons. But rings are won when they can complement that with being able to stop other teams.

SGH
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dennis_D
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 2017
Location: North Dallas

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:40 pm    Post subject:

Sky, for years, you have been saying Mitch is a bad GM and that his moves hurt the team (other than drafting Bynum which you refuse to give him credit for), where as all along I have been saying the Mitch is a good GM. Now that the Lakers have won a championship, you claim you were right all along. Doesn't look that way to me.

Back in 11/07, you gave a list of 10 GM's better than Mitch. By 11/08, you had 6 GM's better than Mitch. Those 6 were Bower-Bass (New Orleans), Colangelo (Toronto), Dumars (Detroit), Pritchard (Portland), Paxson (Chicago) and Morey (Houston). Since you posted that ranking, Toronto collapsed to 33 wins, Detroit went to 39 wins and looks to be slipping out of the playoffs, and Chicago couldn't get over .500 with tons of lottery picks. New Orleans dropped 7 wins and lost in the first round. Looks like its time to whittle the list down some more.

It was obvious that the Lakers had talent during the first half of '06-'07 season when they started 27-15 with Odom missing 21 of those games and Bynum looking very raw. I was forecasting a 55+ win season before the start of the '07-'08 season. What were you forecasting?

I worship at the throne of the Big W. Offense, defense are just means to an end.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sky
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Apr 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Up

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:12 pm    Post subject:

The balance of offense and defense is how you get to the Big W.

07-08 iirc I had them at low 50s, I think I was 52, 53, something like that. This season I had a title from pre-season on, but then we all did.

imo Mitch's philosophy changed with Bynum, that represented the first time he valued physical skills in the draft. I give Mitch credit for drafting Bynum but less credit than Lester seeing the talent and lobbying for it and Jimmy pushing hard for it. Kupchak still had to pull the trigger and he was the one who took the risk and he deserves credit for that. But there's no way he gets more credit for that than Lester and Jimmy when they are the ones who identified the opportunity and per Dr. Buss pushed hardest for it.

The list does get whittled down a lot more certainly. But note the timing, the shift is post Bynum. Which coincides with when balance was finally valued. The Kupchak of the past just keeps the gunner matadors in quadruplicate. Epiphany Kupchak deals roster redundancy (two of his past gunner matador mistakes) for the primary missing skillset in Ariza.

You can say he's always been the same guy but his picks and acquisitions were not. Prior to Bynum outside of the Shaq deal what do you have?Slow unathletic tri fit offense first defense last players except for Kwame (and that was fiscally driven since they didn't want to re-sign Caron). Going forward from the Bynum pick what do you have? Bynum, Ariza, Mbenga, Powell, Brown. Physical skills and other than Powell they're all defense first. Roster balance. Morrison is an exception but he was acquired for the contract, 2011 out, 2010 in. Fisher is the other exception but that's balance on a different axis, needed more leadership after Smushcalade and Chuckwagon.

Credit to Mitch on Fisher where I was dead set against it, I'll fully admit I was dead wrong there. But I still believe you can see a clear change in philosophy from the Bynum pick forward. If he was the same guy all along then it follows that balance should have arrived earlier than it did. Balancing out gunner matdors with defense first players should have happened sooner, instead more gunner matadors were picked. Cook, Radmanovic, Vujacic. A few years later those same gunner matadors are traded for the missing skillset. There's the proof of the change in valuation.

I guess what it boils down to Dennis is this. You are trying to use his current success to claim he was always good and never as bad as I claimed. But I point to his acquisition record as ironclad proof of the good (Bynum forward), the bad (drafting Sasha) and the ugly (drafting Cook). He changed. Drafted Cook, traded Cook. Change. Signed Radmanovic, dealt Radmanovic. Change. Drafted Sasha, hopefully dealt him. Same with Farmar. All the offense-first defense last players except for Luke are shown the door (hopefully).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LAkers 4 Life
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 14629

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:59 pm    Post subject:

It's a team management success. Everyone did their roles and took advantage of certain situations. Not one person is responsible, because it was a collective effort. Hopefully Mitch can continue the good work for many years. He just needs to learn how to deal with free agency.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dennis_D
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 2017
Location: North Dallas

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:24 am    Post subject:

Sky wrote:
imo Mitch's philosophy changed with Bynum, that represented the first time he valued physical skills in the draft.
:
The list [of better GM's] does get whittled down a lot more certainly. But note the timing, the shift is post Bynum. Which coincides with when balance was finally valued. The Kupchak of the past just keeps the gunner matadors in quadruplicate. Epiphany Kupchak deals roster redundancy (two of his past gunner matador mistakes) for the primary missing skillset in Ariza.

You can say he's always been the same guy but his picks and acquisitions were not. Prior to Bynum outside of the Shaq deal what do you have?Slow unathletic tri fit offense first defense last players except for Kwame (and that was fiscally driven since they didn't want to re-sign Caron). Going forward from the Bynum pick what do you have? Bynum, Ariza, Mbenga, Powell, Brown. Physical skills and other than Powell they're all defense first. Roster balance.

Here are the moves that followed the Bynum pick:
* Drafted Turiaf
* Drafted Wafer
* Trded Atkins and Butler for Kwame
* Re-signed Walton
* Signed McKie
* Signed Devin Green
* Traded Jumaine Jones to the Bobcats for a conditional 2nd round pick
* Exrcised the contract option for Brian Cook
* Signed Jim Jackson
* Drafted Farmar
* Traded the 51st pick to Detroit for Evans
* Signed Radmanovic to a full MLE contract

Now, how many of those moves were for a defense-first player with physical skills? I am guessing 3 out of the 12 (Turiaf, Kwame and Green).

Most of the guys you listed were acquired after the team had burst out of the gates in the '07-'08 season. Ariza was acquired 11/07, Mbenga was signed 1/08, Powell was signed 8/08 and Brown was acquired 2/09. To claim that the Lakers were finally successful once they were acquired is just nuts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sky
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Apr 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Up

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:28 am    Post subject:

The Lakers were successful once the roster was in balance. They failed to succeed when it wasn't. Look at the rosters from Shaq trade on and the results. Out of balance: lottery, 1st round exit, 1st round exit. Get into balance: western champs. Commit to defense: NBA champions.

The shift began after Bynum. Can't be wholesale change immediately. 3 of the 12 ok and how many of those 12 you named stuck around when they went to the finals back to back? When did LA finally succeed? When the roster was in much greater balance.

The point is the roster that succeeded Dennis. West and ring. What did it have? Way more balance than in Kupchak's prior years. Night and day. Old Mitch: gunner matadors in quadruplicate. New Mitch: more athletes, more defenders, more speed, more youth. More balance. The rosters that won in the past two years had balance. The rosters that failed before that didn't, too many 1-way players, too many offense-first players, not enough defense-first players, too much outside not enough inside.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
davidse
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 14302

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:09 am    Post subject:

Worthy42 wrote:
If you think about it, it was basically Kobe-Lamar.

Then Mitch brought in the pieces that completed the puzzle throughout...

Drafting Bynum

Bringing back Fisher

Gasol Trade

Ariza Trade

Finally getting Shanwow.

He solidified our roster with the key parts in areas where we needed help bad.

The key thing is aside from Fisher all those parts are still just peaking.



that is a very wrong way of looking at things, and it's ignoring all of mitch's mistakes and faults - which he himself apparently saw and fortunatly corrected.


it wasn't "first" kobe-lamar.
there was a shaq trade from which all we have to show is lamar odom...
nothing to be proud of.
lamar was brought in with the expectation that he'd be this team's second best player and that we could get to contender status like that.
that was a very wrong assumption which i personaly refuted from day 1.

drafting bynum was a great move for this organization's future - but the credit for that is "disputed" to say the least, and bynum's impact on this specific title turned out to be quite minor.

bringing back fish was a very good move, although obviously luck+kobe and phil's inputs played a big role in that.

gasol trade followed a misrable butler trade.
in theory - we could have kept caron and traded any expiring contracts we may have had for gasol. kwame had no "value" in that trade - his contract did.

so it was the expiring contract we were LUCKY enough to have (after trading an allstar for him) because of a failed 2010 plan (which is why kwame got this specific length of contract) + another misrable past free agent signing (mckie) that got us gasol.

this was no plan.
this was a great move and great taking advantage of an opportunity - using players who represent past mistakes.

ariza trade - again, obviously great move, but who did we trade ?
the guy we gave an overpaid extention to just a few months back...
again - not part of any plan, but another correction of a mistake.

shanwow ?
same story.
who did we trade to get him and ammo ?
the mistake we made 2 years earlier.


so overall - are we in great position right now because of moves that mitch made ?
absolutly.

but do not make him seem like some "master planner".
every bit of critisizm he has gotten in the past was 100% deserved, just as all the praise he recieved later.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58318

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:22 am    Post subject:

Sky - There is no doubt that balance was needed in order to win rings, but some of the things that you have failed to consider.

1) The Lakers were suffering from the effects of building around Shaq. The guys like Cook, Walton, Slava, they were Forwards LA brought into to feed and play off Shaq. Phil's own vision changed for the team once it became Kobe's team. When it was Shaq's team, this team played much slower, far more deliberate and even when they won their third ring, I would hardly call that team "athletic" that won rings in 2001 and 2002. Fox and Fish were slow, same with Horry. Shaw was on his last legs. Harper was done, and Grant was on his last legs too. Walker didn't even last in the NBA.

The Lakers made a huge coup in Malone and Payton after they lost in 2003, that got them back to the Finals, but in reality the team needed a re-tooling starting 2002. Mitch waited too long, but then again its rare you get a Malone + Payton package knocking on your door, and at that time Buss was far less open to taking on salary. He was adamant about the lux tax back then, something he no longer is. Remember how we waived Shaw? How we wouldn't use the MLE's each year? The Lakers were never close to 100 M in payroll, something we will be now.

2) So all of a sudden you go from a contender built around Shaq, to trading Shaq, losing Phil, and having Kobe as your main guy. Now the team needs change. We need a team far more athletic, similar to what Jordan had in the Bulls.

I agree Mitch did not recognize this until 2005 with his transactions. Remember though, he did trade for Odom. Someone athletic, and who wound up a big part of the eventual championship in 2004. So the pieces to the ultimate prize - a championship - began forming in 2004, the minute they moved Shaq. It wasn't in 2005 or 2006, as you suggest. I have always felt that the reason the Lakers struggled with building around Kobe so much in the beginning is that it is MUCH harder to build around a SG, and at the same time they had been for the last decade or so been drafting, trading and assembling a team for a post player. Changing all of that, takes time.

You've been calling for the same moves since the start, even when we had Shaq. Thats fine, I respect that. What you must see is that the philosophies changed when they changed franchise players. You put great athletes with Shaq, and you get the Suns. They will be playing too quick for Shaq. Kinda like the late 90's with NVE, Eddie and Kobe on the same team with Shaq. Exciting but losers.

Yes no doubt there were moves that you've called out in the past that wound up exactly as you predicted. But overall, I think Dennis' faith in Mitch has proven to be correct. Mitch has been patient, yet accurate in gaining the pieces for the end game. Which is the ring. Many other GM's like the list you gave Dennis a few years ago, who were considered better than Mitch at that time, made the moves quicker. Yet, their moves didn't result in the final prize. Which is why, no matter how you feel about Mitch's moves in the past, you need to acknowledge in the end, he did the right thing. His be patient method, had good reasoning. Why trade for Ron Artest or Jason Kidd, when you can get Pau Gasol. Why trade Andrew or Lamar at all, when you can keep them and move forward.

Mitch is not perfect, but I think you need to agree that he has proven himself to be a top notch GM and there was a method to his madness.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
davidse
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 14302

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:27 am    Post subject:

"Mitch is not perfect, but I think you need to agree that he has proven himself to be a top notch GM and there was a METHOD to his madness."


and that's where we disagree.


great gm now ?
yes.

great moves made to deserve that ?
yes.

method ?
plan ?

absolutly not.

just about every move involved trading away his own past mistakes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13708

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:49 am    Post subject:

Dreamshake wrote:

So with all of the cost cutting that is going on because of the economy and the dreams of 2010, a few teams that aren't "too far" away could land a key piece like Gasol (like him, not necessarily that good but still a key player) as long as they are willing to make the financial commitments that LA is making now, and that Boston made in 08.

So this summer will let us know if these franchises really want to win like LA, or if they are just pretending....because there seems to be a lot of impact players available (Amare, Prince, Hamilton, Shaq, maybe Nash, etc).


Ok, well since the Spurs just got Jefferson for essentially nothing (Bowen, Thomas and Oberto), it looks like they want to play. What other potential contender will put winning above money?? Come on Houston....get in the game!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sky
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Apr 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Up

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:06 pm    Post subject:

Wolf - Great point on Shaq and total payroll, point well made on that. It handcuffs what Kupchak can do. But even after Shaq is gone Mitch still signs Radmanovic and drafts Vujacic. Shaq fits in a Kobe era. Kobe needs a shooter around him but Cook, Vlad, Sasha, three gunner matadors?

On a method no, davidse shot that one down in flames. When the method is draft Cook, trade him, sign VladRad, trade him, trade for Kwame, trade him, deal for Evans, trade him, there is no method. There's correcting a litany of past mistakes.

You want to give Mitch credit now absolutely. You want to use his current success to argue he wasn't bad early on absolutely not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:54 pm    Post subject:

It is comforting to know that in this crazy world and tumultuous time that some things are still steady as a rock - like Mitch Kupchak is a bumbling fool who gets limited credit (at best) for good moves, all of the blame for bad ones and is incapable of having a plan or method.

Of course it completely ignores the fact that highlighting every valid criticism of Mitch is useless unless we can show that other GMs made less mistakes. Kinda hard to do now that Mitch has the best team in the league, but as always I welcome yanylist of GMs who are better, and I sure hope none of them drafted the wrong player, got lucky somehow or traded their past mistakes...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sky
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Apr 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Up

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:03 pm    Post subject:

Other GMs made mistakes too. But the argument is being made that Mitch had a method throughout. He didn't. That Mitch always valued balance. He didn't.

Mitch is the best NOW doesn't mean he was the best or even good THEN or had a method throughout. Yet that is the argument you, Wolf and Dennis are trying to make. Doesn't hold water.

Kupchak had valuation blind spots and crippling biases intiiailly, learned, corrected his mistakes and as a result now he succeeds. He grew in the job, he learned in the job. Far more realistic than oh he always had a method, he always knew what he was doing, he never had any valuation blind spots. No. He learned and grew.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:08 pm    Post subject:

Sky wrote:
Other GMs made mistakes too. But the argument is being made that Mitch had a method throughout. He didn't. That Mitch always valued balance. He didn't.

Mitch is the best NOW doesn't mean he was the best or even good THEN or had a method throughout. Yet that is the argument you, Wolf and Dennis are trying to make. Doesn't hold water.

Kupchak had valuation blind spots and crippling biases intiiailly, learned, corrected his mistakes and as a result now he succeeds. He grew in the job, he learned in the job. Far more realistic than oh he always had a method, he always knew what he was doing, he never had any valuation blind spots. No. He learned and grew.

I think 'method to his madness' is more of a phrase than someone attesting to an actual clearly defined modus orperandi. Regardless, of course Mitch has a method, in fact 'planned and methodical' might be Mitch's defining characteristics, and it was evident before he joined the Lakers front office.
Quote:
Kupchak showed remarkable forethought in planning for his "life after" being an NBA player—pursuing a focused program to learn the trade of running NBA team operations. While still under his initial player contract, he worked with the "front office", developing strong working relationships with Laker management, beginning to "apprentice" with Jerry West, and starting studies that led to his MBA from the UCLA Anderson School of Management in 1987.

Now, to your point , Mitch's method of running an NBA franchise was taught to him by Jerry West beginning about 23 years ago. He learned the method that worked so well for West (and Sharman before him), and Mitch was competent enough with the Lakers way that he was the most coveted potential replacement for vacant GMs - I can't think of anyone even close.

Doesn't a more linear ascension from player, to student, to apprentice, to assistant GM to GM to Champion make more sense? Would West and Buss really put up with Kupchak just showing up and doing what he pleased without a plan or method? Did Kupchak really become blind and crippled ( paraphrasing) for 5 years before becoming great again? I think one of Dennis D's points of this thread is that having to draft near the end of the draft on a capped out roster can make any GM look bad. As soon as Mitch had something to work with, he really shined! And to answer the question put forth in this thread - No, I don't think another team could duplicate what the Lakers have done, (don't think anyone has rebuilt faster) and a lot of the credit goes to Micth.

Funny, that like Kobe, Mitch won't get enough credit for his first set of rings until he rebuilds and does it again 'on his own'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sky
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Apr 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Up

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:21 pm    Post subject:

Mitch does get credit now, as he should. This was his team.

Look JMK my only objection is when folks attempt to argue that because Kupchak is successful now he was just fine before. No he wasn't. He drafted signed and traded for gunner matadors en masse and failed as a result.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Topic HOF All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB