Hindsight is 20/20 Thread

[NoBonus]

After watching Game 1 of the Suns/Lakers, it got me thinking about those decisions teams make, that, when you look at it after a couple years, were really terrible. The one I was thinking about during the game was the decision of the Lakers to keep Kobe and trade Shaq. Shaq went on to win another ring (and maybe more), Kobe, as it turns out, really needed Shaq to be successful.

I know there are a ton of other examples out there like Minnesota firing Flip Saunders, but that is the only one I can think of... well, besides the Kings draft picks except the last few years....

Can Anyone think of any others?

 

[Kingzrool]

The letting go of RA.

 

[NoBonus]

I wish I had spelled hindsight correctly... oh well...

 

[NoBonus]

The letting go of RA.

Especially when you consider the great plan the Kings had to replace him... Cheese-Whizz? No, Muss.

 

[Bricklayer]

I wish I had spelled hindsight correctly... oh well...

You did.

 

[NoBonus]

You did.

Thanks Bricklayer.

 

[D-Mass]

Bulls trading Elton Brand for Brian Skinner and the rights to Tyson Chandler.

Oops.

 

[mcsluggo]

After watching Game 1 of the Suns/Lakers, it got me thinking about those decisions teams make, that, when you look at it after a couple years, were really terrible. The one I was thinking about during the game was the decision of the Lakers to keep Kobe and trade Shaq. Shaq went on to win another ring (and maybe more), Kobe, as it turns out, really needed Shaq to be successful.

I know there are a ton of other examples out there like Minnesota firing Flip Saunders, but that is the only one I can think of... well, besides the Kings draft picks except the last few years....

Can Anyone think of any others?

DO you think Shaq with the current Lakers roster (sans Kobe) would be going anywhere?

 

[NoBonus]

DO you think Shaq with the current Lakers roster (sans Kobe) would be going anywhere?

Two things. The Lakers would have traded Kobe for someone decent giving Shaq a guy to benefit from the attention he receives (see Dwayne Wade or Kobe Bryant)
Second, with a tweaked roster (the current roster is incompatible) and Phil Jackson at the helm the whole time, things would be much better for the Lakers.

 

[DaMan]

The letting go of RA.

I don't agree. In my opinion, no matter want RA would have done he would not help this team get in to the playoff. This team was going down hill each and every year, there was even a trend showing it in the other forum. The west was getting better while we were staying the same or getting worse, RA would have not changed that. If you wanted to keep him here for the rebuilding process thats fine but if you wanted to keep him him to get us into the playoffs i really doubt he could have done that.

 

[Kingzrool]

I don't agree. In my opinion, no matter want RA would have done he would not help this team get in to the playoff. This team was going down hill each and every year, there was even a trend showing it in the other forum. The west was getting better while we were staying the same or getting worse, RA would have not changed that. If you wanted to keep him here for the rebuilding process thats fine but if you wanted to keep him him to get us into the playoffs i really doubt he could have done that.

I couldn't care less about being ejected in the first round of the Playoffs (although I believe GP would have gotten Kings there). RA was a talented and experienced coach and Kings will be really lucky if they can find an equal replacement.

 

[mcsluggo]

Two things. The Lakers would have traded Kobe for someone decent giving Shaq a guy to benefit from the attention he receives (see Dwayne Wade or Kobe Bryant)
Second, with a tweaked roster (the current roster is incompatible) and Phil Jackson at the helm the whole time, things would be much better for the Lakers.

No.

The Lakers would 've been in the same position trading Kobe as they were in trading Shaq, hamstrung by the fact that everyone knew they HAD to make a trade. They traded Shaq, and got back value, just not full value. I imagine that they would've been able to swing a similar trade for Kobe, Odom, Butler and filler-- which is frnakly a much better trade for filling the hole by a lost Kobe, than a lost Shaq.

 

[mcsluggo]

Frankly, Shaq was not only not the best player on the Heat in year's playoffs, he wasn't even the best CENTER on the Heat in last year's playoffs. He is not the same player he used to be.

 

[DaMan]

I couldn't care less about being ejected in the first round of the Playoffs (although I believe GP would have gotten Kings there). RA was a talented and experienced coach and Kings will be really lucky if they can find an equal replacement.

So want you are saying is that you want RA for the rebuilding process? (which i don't have a problem with)

 

[DaMan]

Frankly, Shaq was not only not the best player on the Heat in year's playoffs, he wasn't even the best CENTER on the Heat in last year's playoffs. He is not the same player he used to be.

Shaq may not be the same player but with out him they would have not won the championship last year. Shaq just being in the game changes everything. Just because of his prescence and his abitily to over power his men makes him a force to be wecken with. When a team doubles down on shaq he stills has the ability to find the open men, in other words spreads the floor for his teams mates, indeed with Wade. Take shaq off that team, Wade will have a hell of a time making the playoffs.

If the lakers in fact kept Shaq over Kobe they would just have to trade kobe for an above avg wing player to put next to shaq and they will be a contender. Tracy McGrady, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Vince Carter and so on would have done fine. The problem with Kobe is that once he finds out he can't do it by himself and needs a superstar next to him to win it all and he kick off the best one of our time is when he will win a championship.

 

[Geoff]

Bowie over Jordan (not that Bowie sucked TOO badly).

Darko over almost everyone that came over him (and while I wish nothing but the best for Darko...it's just the facts)

CWebb and Matt Barnes for...let's not even go there.

Caron Butler for Kwame Brown, definitely. I wonder why no one's mentioning this trade results in the media...


Ryan Leaf.

take it somebody...

 

[coolhandluke]

After watching Game 1 of the Suns/Lakers, it got me thinking about those decisions teams make, that, when you look at it after a couple years, were really terrible. The one I was thinking about during the game was the decision of the Lakers to keep Kobe and trade Shaq. Shaq went on to win another ring (and maybe more), Kobe, as it turns out, really needed Shaq to be successful.

It isn't really hindsight if you want to make a judgment on the trade with the best of Kobe Bryant, arguably the most potent player in the league and best two guard not named Jordan to ever play the game, yet to come.

You can question the Lakers on what they got out of the Shaq trade and the players they surrounded Kobe with but those issues would remain whether they trade one instead of the other.

It is a reasonable choice to pick Kobe entering his prime over an over-the-hill Shaq when you are thinking about the long term prospects of a franchise. I mean who wouldn't love a big guy who (i) proudly takes vacation "on company time", (ii) screams at the owner to "show him the money" after a meaningless performance in a meaningless regular season game, (iii) pouts that he is not being shown enough "respect" when the Lakers wouldn't give him a raise over his already monstrous salary, which is maddening when you consider his deteriorating play. (He took a reduced salary with the Heat) Say whatever you want about Jerry Buss, but he is never going to let a player hold his franchise hostage. Shaq forced the trade.

In hindsight, the trade was beneficial to Shaq as (a) he get off his lazy behind to get in reasonable shape, (b) made him little less competitive about sharing the spotlight with another star player, (c) and finally fired him enough to win a ring without Kobe to show that he still got it albeit for one more year.

 

[hoopsfan]

If the Lakers had kept Shaq, they would have had the Shaq that was out of shape more and more every year that also demanded the max $ on his new contract. (Remember the "PAY ME MF'er!" comment to Dr. Buss??)

The only reason, IMO, that Shaq got into better shape with Miami was to show up the Lakers and get good $ out of Riley....notice he took a lesser amount after his decline was glaringly obvious that first season.

So...Lakers would have been without Kobe and been stuck with an even more out of shape Shaq and a bigger contract! How could they rebuild a team with that albatross??

 

[vladetomiller]

If the lakers in fact kept Shaq over Kobe they would just have to trade kobe for an above avg wing player to put next to shaq and they will be a contender. Tracy McGrady, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Vince Carter and so on would have done fine. The problem with Kobe is that once he finds out he can't do it by himself and needs a superstar next to him to win it all and he kick off the best one of our time is when he will win a championship.

Lakers thought that LO can be that sidekick, and gambled on Kwame. Unfortunately both of them have not lived up to their potential due to injuries or whatever. The offseason signing of Vlad Rad was also a bust cos his injury, chris mihm has been out all year and he was supposed to be the starting center. So its not that he has had a full complement of players to support him and the lakers still have brian grant on the payroll, which would ease up next year i guess and they can make some moves to get some players or a player like garnett.

Kwame is the biggest problem i guess in the roster, he was fumbling lay up after lay up and none of the lakers could hit any lay up, some of it was cos the pushing that was happening and the refs not calling them but mostly cos they just couldnt finish. Suns are a team that are hard to play against when they have a lead as they start firing away on threes and if they go in that game is over before halftime. Somehow I feel that we will have a different discussion on this series down the line

If the lakers can land a decent big man like Rasheed wallace, Chris Bosh, etc i think they will do much better even without LO. Shaq on the other hand had a well built team with lots of firepower in all positions - JWill, Walker, Wade, Mourning as backup and Haslem who was consistently hitting open jumpers. Thats a much better team than smush/farmar, LO, Luke, Kwame and Bynum. They get some energy off the bench in Turiaf and Evans but thats pretty much it, they can get some hustle plays and get the home crowd going but are not intangibles and are not that very talented.

But anyways lets talk after sunday

 

[NoBonus]

The reason I see Shaq as the key to the great Laker demise is this: to succeed in the playoffs, you MUST have good big men. Jump shooting teams never, or hardly ever, win rings. They may get close, but the playoffs require a at least a solid if not extraordinary inside presence.


As far as kobe being the second best guard ever, I just think back to what George Karl said about Kobe in the season after the Shaq trade: "Kobe is just a stat player on a sub-500 team." I do not think Kobe will ever be anything more than that, really, he will have great stats, but until his game matures...

 

[Superman]

The reason I see Shaq as the key to the great Laker demise is this: to succeed in the playoffs, you MUST have good big men. Jump shooting teams never, or hardly ever, win rings. They may get close, but the playoffs require a at least a solid if not extraordinary inside presence.

The Lakers problem isn't that they don't have good big men. That is what's going to keep them from contending for a title anytime soon. What's keeping them from being a good team is inconsistent production from anyone not wearing #24, and lack of experience. Lamar Odom still hasn't reached basketball puberty, and Luke Walton isn't talented enough to be the second best player on a good team.

The Lakers got rid of Shaq because they didn't deem it a good investment to throw $130 million over five years at a declining center who showed no desire to stay in good enough shape to play hard enough to dominate consistently. And they knew that if they kept Shaq, they'd lose Kobe. No sense in losing both of your superstars; Shaq left, Kobe stayed. Now they need someone who can put together a team of experienced basketball players to seriously contend. A dominant big man would be great for them, but they have other problems that need to be addressed as well. No point guard, no perimeter or interior defense, and no veteran composure late in games (which is largely Kobe's fault). They're only a couple of pieces away, but Mitch Kupchak doesn't know what those pieces are or how to get them. Mitch Kupchak thinks his team is already good enough - when healthy - to contend for a title.

And for that, I thank Mitch Kupchak. As long as he's running the show, the Lakers aren't winning jack.