Howard to the Lakers

[Dime Dropper]

One thing that has to be said for the Lakers - they have a really great front office. Ther are proactive, they consistently win trades (and big ones), and they don't panic. I hate the Lakers and hope this somehow backfires on them, but there's a reason they're consistently challenging, and it's not solely because of Kobe. They do a great job putting a team around him.

 

[ParniValjak]

From ESPN.com:



Reason #5,485 why I hate the freaking Lakers. In essence, they just traded Andrew Bynum for Dwight Howard. !@*@#^(#@?~?!?!

 

[Kingster]

From ESPN.com:



Reason #5,485 why I hate the freaking Lakers. In essence, they just traded Andrew Bynum for Dwight Howard. !@*@#^(#@?~?!?!

Yep. Didn't even have to give up Gasol. Howard, Gasol, Kobe, Nash, and Mr. X for starting lineup. Oh, but their bench is going to be bad, right? Any hopes of overtaking the "declining" Lakers just got crushed. The West just got a lot tougher. And the Lakers are the odds on favorites to win the NBA Championship. Happy Days.

The thing that really gets me about his trade is that Orlando got punked by LA with the whole Shaq thing. Now they are going back to the Lakers to be punked again. Talk about being the b**** of the Lakers... Wow.

 

[Kingster]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8254854/mailbag

This is a very funny article about the Howard deal; but you've got to have a sick sense of humor to like it if you aren't a Laker's fan...

 

[jalfa]

do you guys think that this move makes the Lakers an odds on favourite vs. OKC? just looking at the matchups, the Thunder should still win and once they do, what incentive would Howard have to stay in LaLa land? because that team isn't going to get better.

 

[gunks]

OKC can still take the Lakers. Perk defends Dwight as well as anyone, and Westbrook is just going to completely DESTROY Nash. Kobe isnt an impact player anymore, Durant on the other hand....


The Lakers look pretty rad on paper (besides their bench), but all the big names are on the decline, and as good as Howard is, you have to worry about that back (think Ming, or T-Mac).

Maybe I'm being optimistically pessimistic on their chances, but I doubt they'll dominate like everyone thinks they will.

 

[kingjatt]

do you guys think that this move makes the Lakers an odds on favourite vs. OKC? just looking at the matchups, the Thunder should still win and once they do, what incentive would Howard have to stay in LaLa land? because that team isn't going to get better.

why would you say OKC over the lakers? The lakers played them real tough last year in the playoffs and all of the games came down to the end, plus the lakers just got wayy better, D12 will intimidate and handle anyone that gets to the rim and the lakers are really really long at every position except PG who happens to be a former 2 time MVP himself.

This move puts the lakers head and shoulders above anyone else in the west imo.

incentive to stay in Los Angeles?? they will always spend and attract marque guys, with the training and medical attention these guys get these days i can see kobe and gosal playing at decent to high levels for at least 4-5 more seasons (which will also be the length of D12's extension) espcially when they dont have to carry the entire load.

The lakers FO is probably the sharpest in the entire league, they know Dwight will have zero options that are more attractive than the lakers after this season, what team will he go too for 20 million less than what the lakers can give him? dallas? houston? and nobody else will have the capspace to sign him.

 

[steelevt]

OKC can still take the Lakers. Perk defends Dwight as well as anyone, and Westbrook is just going to completely DESTROY Nash. Kobe isnt an impact player anymore, Durant on the other hand....


The Lakers look pretty rad on paper (besides their bench), but all the big names are on the decline, and as good as Howard is, you have to worry about that back (think Ming, or T-Mac).

Maybe I'm being optimistically pessimistic on their chances, but I doubt they'll dominate like everyone thinks they will.

i think this offseason has propelled the lakers from 3rd or 4th seed to 1st or 2nd. the additions of nash and d12 have moved them pass the clippers and past an older spurs team. so it's either lakers or thunders barring injuries.

howard>perkins
gasol>ibaka
artest<durant
kobe>sefolosha
nash<westbrook

and as bad as lakers bench was last year. now they have jamison, jordan hill, steve blake, and duhon and earl clark coming in. not too shabby

 

[kingjatt]

OKC can still take the Lakers. Perk defends Dwight as well as anyone, and Westbrook is just going to completely DESTROY Nash. Kobe isnt an impact player anymore, Durant on the other hand....


The Lakers look pretty rad on paper (besides their bench), but all the big names are on the decline, and as good as Howard is, you have to worry about that back (think Ming, or T-Mac).

Maybe I'm being optimistically pessimistic on their chances, but I doubt they'll dominate like everyone thinks they will.

perk does defend dwight well, but dwight isnt all he has to worry about now like the case was with the magic.

westbrook will destroy nash, but then have to deal with dwight at the rim as well as pau rotating over
(not a great shotblocker but a 7 footer non the less)

kobe may not dominate every game but last i checked he put up 42 pts at over 50% shooting in the last playoff game vs. okc (i know im picking a selective fact but this is to simply point out that he can still dominate from time to time) plus he will have to carry much less of the offensive load now.

I think this is a better mix of complementry talent in comparision to the miami big three.

I hate the Lakers but its hard to argue against this roster.

 

[Chupacabra]

One thing that has to be said for the Lakers - they have a really great front office. Ther are proactive, they consistently win trades (and big ones), and they don't panic. I hate the Lakers and hope this somehow backfires on them, but there's a reason they're consistently challenging, and it's not solely because of Kobe. They do a great job putting a team around him.

Having the most popular basketball team in the world as well as being located in southern california might also be slightly helping the organization. I find it impossible to attribute the teams success to its front office. Not this team.

 

[bajaden]

One thing that has to be said for the Lakers - they have a really great front office. Ther are proactive, they consistently win trades (and big ones), and they don't panic. I hate the Lakers and hope this somehow backfires on them, but there's a reason they're consistently challenging, and it's not solely because of Kobe. They do a great job putting a team around him.

I believe everything you just listed equals money. They probably take in four times the amount of money in TV revenues, than the Kings take in, in total. Simply no way to equalize that. No one said that life is fair..

 

[bajaden]

So the question is, how much did the Lakers actually help themselves. One could argue that where they helped themselves the most, is in the PR dept. There's no question that Howard has much more PR impact than Bynum does. But aside from that, I'm not sure the Lakers will be significantly better with Howard than they were with Bynum. Don't get me wrong! I do think that Howard is a better all around player. Certainly a better athlete. But in every area, their results are very similar. Howard averaged 20.6 PPG. Bynum averaged 18.7 PPG. Both shot close to 57% overall. Howard averaged 14.5 RPG, while Bynum averaged 11.8 RPG. Both players averaged close to 2 BPG. Howard will turn 27 years old during the season and Bynum will turn 25 years old during the season.

The real question marks are related to the other core players. Kobe will be 34 years old, but more importantly, he's already over the 1000 game threshold that few players ever cross, having played in 1,335 games in his career. He's at the point of his career, where the end could approach very rapidly. Nash will turn 39 years old during the season, and has also crossed the 1000 game threshold, having played 1,152 games. Both Kobe and Nash take excellent care of their bodies, but all things do come to an end, and in both players case, the end is approaching fast. Gasol is a little more of an unknown quanity. He's 32 years old, and he's played in 796 NBA games so far. But the question is, how many european games has he played in as well? Add in that I've never heard that Pau was a workout freak. Some noted that his play took a step backwards last season. Was that just an anomaly, or was it the beginning of a slow downward spirial.

So do I think the Lakers will be better and compete for a championship? Yes! But I thought that before the Howard trade. Do I think they're the favorites to come out of the western division? No, I don't. If I had any money, I'd put the money on the Thunder. I think the Thunder are ready to break through and win a championship. You have to bounce off the wall a few times to figure it out, and they've done that. They match up with the Lakers very well, and more importantly, they're more athletic and younger overall. And, now they also have the experience.

The Lakers started out the offseason as an aging team, and ironicly, adding Howard, actually made them older. They're still one injury away from being an average playoff team. And Howard, if he is a fix at all, is a short term fix. He's already proved he can't carry a team by himself. And soon, if he remains with the Lakers, he'll once again be by himself.

 

[pshn80]

I believe everything you just listed equals money. They probably take in four times the amount of money in TV revenues, than the Kings take in, in total. Simply no way to equalize that. No one said that life is fair..

lIt's the simple truth. If they want someone they have the money to do it anyway their trading partner wants. Different league than teams like the Kings. This outcome doiesn't surprise me or upset me. The Lakes have always done it and everytime we meet them in a game they can only field 5 men in the starting lineup. We beat them from time to time no matter how bad out team was on paper. This games this coming season with the Lakers will be no dirrerent than they ever were. With Howard on the Lakers we'll see him play a little more often.

 

[kingjatt]

So the question is, how much did the Lakers actually help themselves. One could argue that where they helped themselves the most, is in the PR dept. There's no question that Howard has much more PR impact than Bynum does. But aside from that, I'm not sure the Lakers will be significantly better with Howard than they were with Bynum. Don't get me wrong! I do think that Howard is a better all around player. Certainly a better athlete. But in every area, their results are very similar. Howard averaged 20.6 PPG. Bynum averaged 18.7 PPG. Both shot close to 57% overall. Howard averaged 14.5 RPG, while Bynum averaged 11.8 RPG. Both players averaged close to 2 BPG. Howard will turn 27 years old during the season and Bynum will turn 25 years old during the season.

Your right the fact that they are similar is getting overlooked to a degree, but howard is faster and more athletic, alters way more shots at the rim than bynum and is better off the ball getting putbacks, lobs etc

The magic didnt hvave any above average perimeter defender throughout his entire tenure yet orlando was always up their in defensive catagories.

 

[HndsmCelt]

It's not like we have not seen this before, and it is likely to have the same results.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I'm continually amazed why other GM's go out of their way to help out the Lakers. It makes no sense. Part of making a trade is making sure you're not helping create a team that you cannot beat. Some GM's don't seem to understand that.

Anyway, having that said, I'm not all that convinced the Lakers are really all that much better. First off, they are old on the perimeter. Nash is still a fantastic play maker and shooter, but he's below average everywhere else. Kobe is finally starting to show signs of decline. Artest is nowhere near the player he used to be. And while Dwight Howard is a fantastic shot blocker and rebounder, he has quite a few deficiencies in his game that Bynum was able to provide while he was there.

I'm not suggesting they won't be good, but I'm not at all sold that they are a top 2 team in the West.

 

[steelevt]

So the question is, how much did the Lakers actually help themselves. One could argue that where they helped themselves the most, is in the PR dept. There's no question that Howard has much more PR impact than Bynum does. But aside from that, I'm not sure the Lakers will be significantly better with Howard than they were with Bynum. Don't get me wrong! I do think that Howard is a better all around player. Certainly a better athlete. But in every area, their results are very similar. Howard averaged 20.6 PPG. Bynum averaged 18.7 PPG. Both shot close to 57% overall. Howard averaged 14.5 RPG, while Bynum averaged 11.8 RPG. Both players averaged close to 2 BPG. Howard will turn 27 years old during the season and Bynum will turn 25 years old during the season.

when you are going from a top 5 center to the top center in the league, there is little room for improvement. so i agree the stats will be similar, but in most cases some stats will be better some will be worse. you give up some defense for offense or vice versa when comparing top centers in the league. but in this case, dwight is better in just about every stat category. you mentioned points and rebounds, but howard is better at almost everything except free throws.

ppg fg% ft% off reb def reb tot reb ast stl blk

20.6 57.3 49.1 3.7 10.8 14.5 1.9 1.5 2.1 howard

18.7 55.8 69.2 3.2 8.6 11.8 1.4 0.5 1.9 bynum

in the end some of the stat increases aren't very significant, but it is impressive that the player you got is better at almost everything. he is also a bigger name and better athlete like you mentioned, former defensive player of the year, historically i believe howard was less injury prone (no telling about the future though). so in the end you trade for a player that is better in almost every way (though not significantly at every stat as you mentioned) without having to give up anything other than bynum. now that is how you win in a trade

 

[Kingster]

So the question is, how much did the Lakers actually help themselves. One could argue that where they helped themselves the most, is in the PR dept. There's no question that Howard has much more PR impact than Bynum does. But aside from that, I'm not sure the Lakers will be significantly better with Howard than they were with Bynum. Don't get me wrong! I do think that Howard is a better all around player. Certainly a better athlete. But in every area, their results are very similar. Howard averaged 20.6 PPG. Bynum averaged 18.7 PPG. Both shot close to 57% overall. Howard averaged 14.5 RPG, while Bynum averaged 11.8 RPG. Both players averaged close to 2 BPG. Howard will turn 27 years old during the season and Bynum will turn 25 years old during the season.

The real question marks are related to the other core players. Kobe will be 34 years old, but more importantly, he's already over the 1000 game threshold that few players ever cross, having played in 1,335 games in his career. He's at the point of his career, where the end could approach very rapidly. Nash will turn 39 years old during the season, and has also crossed the 1000 game threshold, having played 1,152 games. Both Kobe and Nash take excellent care of their bodies, but all things do come to an end, and in both players case, the end is approaching fast. Gasol is a little more of an unknown quanity. He's 32 years old, and he's played in 796 NBA games so far. But the question is, how many european games has he played in as well? Add in that I've never heard that Pau was a workout freak. Some noted that his play took a step backwards last season. Was that just an anomaly, or was it the beginning of a slow downward spirial.

So do I think the Lakers will be better and compete for a championship? Yes! But I thought that before the Howard trade. Do I think they're the favorites to come out of the western division? No, I don't. If I had any money, I'd put the money on the Thunder. I think the Thunder are ready to break through and win a championship. You have to bounce off the wall a few times to figure it out, and they've done that. They match up with the Lakers very well, and more importantly, they're more athletic and younger overall. And, now they also have the experience.

The Lakers started out the offseason as an aging team, and ironicly, adding Howard, actually made them older. They're still one injury away from being an average playoff team. And Howard, if he is a fix at all, is a short term fix. He's already proved he can't carry a team by himself. And soon, if he remains with the Lakers, he'll once again be by himself.

The Lakers got a huge amount of brain power in Nash. Then they add a huge amount of defensive athleticism in Howard to mask the declining athleticism of Kobe and Nash. Perfectly complementary in my view. Unless Kobe and Nash fall apart physically, which is always a possibility at their age, I give them the edge for the Championship.

 

[nebs]

 

[Dreadnought]

Well, it helps being a major city. It doesn't help that we can barely keep our only pro team.

 

[Gargamel]

One thing that has to be said for the Lakers - they have a really great front office. Ther are proactive, they consistently win trades (and big ones), and they don't panic. I hate the Lakers and hope this somehow backfires on them, but there's a reason they're consistently challenging, and it's not solely because of Kobe. They do a great job putting a team around him.

People don't want to hear this, but it's true. For a 30+ yr span, they've been consistently better at planning and executing than any other team. They had an owner before Buss (Jack Kent Cooke) who was aggressive and spent money if it meant a real chance at a title. Then, under Buss, who was more aggressive than Cooke was in that refrain, has had Bill Sharman, Jerry West, and Kupchak (West's day-to-day protoge dating back to 1986...Mitch wasn't a newbie when he took over). That kind of consistency and willingness to spend and willingness to take chances AND the Buss family's reasonable take on who's worth max contracts is going to get the job done over the long haul. That advantage trumps their location in LA, imo. See what The Donald had done for 25 years in the same town. The Lakers can sell their past success because they earned it. To top it, it's a family franchise, and though the dumbass horde of Kobetwerps dismissed him as a loser, Jimmy Buss tries to follow his father's plan for the franchise to a T. He's too early to rate, but he's shown a poker playing attitude thus far.

On the other hand, you have types like Heisley, Hennigan and Demps going up against Mitch.

 

[Gargamel]

Your right the fact that they are similar is getting overlooked to a degree, but howard is faster and more athletic, alters way more shots at the rim than bynum and is better off the ball getting putbacks, lobs etc

The magic didnt hvave any above average perimeter defender throughout his entire tenure yet orlando was always up their in defensive catagories.

I wonder if some didn't notice Nash last year. He was still doing it dirty. I don't really get how one could entertain the notion that Nash isn't an extreme upgrade to Blake and Sessions. LA did a good job against OK w/o him and two of their losses were just given up in the final minutes...Gm 3 with unforced TO's caused by Kobe. Nash is taking the ball out of Bryant's messed up hands and away from Blake, who is 2nd stringer material on a good day. Their offense is improved and their post defense is improved, age or not. Nash may be 39, but there's a reason he and Kidd are still in the league. He's going to create garbage buckets that simply weren't there last year, he's a great shooter, and he is a top notch game manager. They had almost none of that with all 3 points they trotted out there last year (including Fish).

 

[steelevt]

I wonder if some didn't notice Nash last year. He was still doing it dirty. I don't really get how one could entertain the notion that Nash isn't an extreme upgrade to Blake and Sessions. LA did a good job against OK w/o him and two of their losses were just given up in the final minutes...Gm 3 with unforced TO's caused by Kobe. Nash is taking the ball out of Bryant's messed up hands and away from Blake, who is 2nd stringer material on a good day. Their offense is improved and their post defense is improved, age or not. Nash may be 39, but there's a reason he and Kidd are still in the league. He's going to create garbage buckets that simply weren't there last year, he's a great shooter, and he is a top notch game manager. They had almost none of that with all 3 points they trotted out there last year (including Fish).

i think some, not all, kings fans wear rose colored glasses that make them overvalue our kings players. some of those fans have the special edition glasses that make them undervalue good/great players making them not good enough to play for the kings and apparently make them worse if they wear a laker jersey. i hate the lakers as much as any kings fan, but i have to give credit where it is due. the lakers weak spot last year was at pg, who did they get? 2 time mvp steve nash. were they content with just filling the spot? no, they add the best center in the league to their roster. bench a little short? antawn jamison, jordan hill, chris duhon, and earl clark will help that out. that is what you call a good offseason and filling needs.

 

[Gargamel]

were they content with just filling the spot? no, they add the best center in the league to their roster. bench a little short? antawn jamison, jordan hill, chris duhon, and earl clark will help that out. that is what you call a good offseason and filling needs.

I'm an LA fan, but I gotta admit that this economy has helped the Lakers achieve even when they shoot for the moon, much less when they want to fill needs. Maybe if you look at their upgrades from 83-96, where the best moves were for players like Mychal T, Threatt, and Ceballos...those are deals that are somewhat rational. The span after 96 has been pretty damn surreal. As far as Dwight goes, I think LA upgraded for sure, but I wasn't even that surprised to wake up at midnight to discover the news. I remember back on 2/1/08, I heard of Pau Gasol at work and I called as many people I knew. I remember staying up all night the night they got Shaq so I could drive to 7/11 at 6am to get the LA papers. I don't even really give a S about getting Dwight. That's my mea culpa...I guess I'm trying to convey that I can understand how shhty this is from the perspective of every other team save for Miami (and I doubt even they like it).

Economics has changed the playing field. Franchises are doing things that they think will protect their fiscal position. Example: Chicago, who refuses to tread into the tax zone at the cost of not being a legit contender for the title. You have LA with a stock of know-how and resources superior to most franchises and GMs in normal circumstances that skews even further in their favor when the other team has constraints other than improving their team. Lesser version of the Yankees situation as addressed in Moneyball (Oakland As).

More bad news, if Dwight re-signs, LA will be in a good place for free agents after some of the current contracts are off the books. He's 26, I have no doubt they'll be trying to rebuild on the fly again. I actually think Kupchak's eye for the future is more penetrating that West's was.

 

[itzcoatl]

You know, if I were a fan of the lakers, I would be very afraid for D12's back.

I'm no doctor, but he had a herniated disc and surgery. It's my understanding that when a person has a surgery for a herniated disc, like a spinal fusion, additional stress is placed on the disc directly above the formerly herniated disc. This additional pressure will more quickly degenerate the second disc and require a second surgery within 10 years.

I gotta imagine with D12's height, weight, athleticism, and level of competition, he will need a second surgery much sooner than that. Moreover, that type of surgery is very, very serious. I'd be surprised if he can 1) sustain his career for the long term, and 2) play at the same level as before the surgery.

 

[Glenn]

The introduction of the luxury tax in 2002 (?) simply meant that the richest franchises did even better than before as they made so much money they could ignore the luxury tax. In other words, most teams felt some constraint but that made it easier for teams like the Lakers to win. Now we have made the luxury tax even worse and that may mean that only a few teams can ignore it. Needless to say, the Lakers never have to worry about money and that gives them an advantage along with the other advantages it already has. Mitch may be a genius but given unfettered ability to spend what he wishes sure gives him a head up on most GMs.

To clarify that this isn't just my opinion. A study was done comparing won/lost records to the franchises income. After the luxury tax was inserted, there was a significant increase in the relation of won/lost records and team income. The rich simply did better. The luxury tax was supposed to increase parity but it did exactly the opposite. I expect nothing less to happen with a tightening of the salary cap. Pretty soon, if the Knicks had even a reasonably skilled GM, we may have a perpetural battle between NY and LA.

A better way of bringing parity to the teams, as the luxury tax has done exactly the opposite, is to increase the amount of revenue sharing. That will never happen and in fact it might not be good for the NBA. Historically, people have gotten used to certain teams battling it out. LA vs Celtics or LA vs anyone has been what people expect and people who live in areas without teams form identities with the top teams. Call them bandwagon fans or simply human.

I value Gargamel's opinion on Mitch but I'd like to work in an economic system that puts constraints on almost anyone but me and I probably would do well also. Mitch has benefitted by being the GM during the era of the luxury tax. I will never understand the trade that got Pau nor will I understand the latest. I have NEVER subscribed to any conspiracy theory in the NBA but I don't think the Lakers always get the best center in the league just by accident and I will never chalk it up to the cleverness of its GM. I wrote earlier a note with a list of the great centers the Lakers have had starting with the first great center, Mikan. Why do they all gravitate to the Lakers?

 

[HereWeBoogie]

honestly it might not be a huge improvement. Dwight will obviously bring them a much better shot blocking presence. but offensively he really just relies on his athleticism, where bynum was just huge and if you let him catch the ball near the hoop its was over. i think the addition of Nash is the much bigger improvement for them, IF kobe lets him run the team like the PG should

 

[bajaden]

I wonder if some didn't notice Nash last year. He was still doing it dirty. I don't really get how one could entertain the notion that Nash isn't an extreme upgrade to Blake and Sessions. LA did a good job against OK w/o him and two of their losses were just given up in the final minutes...Gm 3 with unforced TO's caused by Kobe. Nash is taking the ball out of Bryant's messed up hands and away from Blake, who is 2nd stringer material on a good day. Their offense is improved and their post defense is improved, age or not. Nash may be 39, but there's a reason he and Kidd are still in the league. He's going to create garbage buckets that simply weren't there last year, he's a great shooter, and he is a top notch game manager. They had almost none of that with all 3 points they trotted out there last year (including Fish).

Really not sure what your point is here. So I apologize if I missed it. I don't think anyone underestimates Nash, and in my opinion, he's a bigger factor in the Lakers possibly winning another championship than Howard is. Not that I don't respect what Howard brings, but as I pointed out, although he's a better player than Bynum, the difference, at least stat wise, isn't that significant. However, Nash is a huge upgrade at a position that needed it.

As I stated earlier, the question is whether Kobe and Nash can remain healthy at their respective ages. To lose one for a while during the regular season wouldn't be that big a deal, but to lose one during the playoffs, would put a big dent in their goal to win a championship. I don't think many people realize the significance of having played in over 1000 NBA games. Very few player, especially stars, because they tend to play more minutes, ever reach the 1000 game mark. And those that do, are usually a mere shell of their former selves.

Believe me, I've done a lot of reseach in this area. Now of course there are exceptions, and in the case of Kobe and Nash, the Lakers have two such exceptions on the team at the same time. Kobe wasn't the same player last year, and I don't think thats an accident. When the end starts to come, it can come rapidly. In many cases, star players go from being the man, to being a liability within one year. Look how fast Mitch Richmond fell from grace. Larry Bird never reached 1000 games. Patrick Ewing went from being a star to an aveage player seemingly overnight. Ewing sustained his excellence through 913 games and to the age of 34. After that, it was all downhill, with nagging injuries, and eventually poor play.

Not saying that will happen this next season, and I would never wish that on any player. But it is in the Lakers future at some point. I'd also like to point out, that although Howard improved the Lakers frontline defense, Bynum was no slouch in that dept. And, Nash doesn't help the Lakers backcourt defense. Did I point out that Howard is prone to foul trouble. Somehow, I just don't see Nash having a lot of success trying to guard Westbrook in the playoffs.

 

[bajaden]

People don't want to hear this, but it's true. For a 30+ yr span, they've been consistently better at planning and executing than any other team. They had an owner before Buss (Jack Kent Cooke) who was aggressive and spent money if it meant a real chance at a title. Then, under Buss, who was more aggressive than Cooke was in that refrain, has had Bill Sharman, Jerry West, and Kupchak (West's day-to-day protoge dating back to 1986...Mitch wasn't a newbie when he took over). That kind of consistency and willingness to spend and willingness to take chances AND the Buss family's reasonable take on who's worth max contracts is going to get the job done over the long haul. That advantage trumps their location in LA, imo. See what The Donald had done for 25 years in the same town. The Lakers can sell their past success because they earned it. To top it, it's a family franchise, and though the dumbass horde of Kobetwerps dismissed him as a loser, Jimmy Buss tries to follow his father's plan for the franchise to a T. He's too early to rate, but he's shown a poker playing attitude thus far.

On the other hand, you have types like Heisley, Hennigan and Demps going up against Mitch.

To think that playing in L.A. doesnt make a significant difference is simply ignoring facts. Yes, the Clippers also play there, but they haven't always played there. They came to the party a little late. Everyone knows that Los Angeles is the Lakers town. They were there first, and they own it fan wise. Try moving the Lakers and Jerry Buss to Sacramento, and see how well they do by comparison. You don't get billion dollar TV deals in Sacramento, regardless of who you are. And by no means am I taking away anything from Buss and Laker management. They take advantage of all the benefits available to them as a result of playing in L.A.

Having a billionaire for an owner is a huge advantage, but having that, and residing in a town like Los Angeles with its huge TV market, makes for an unbeatable combination. At least when it comes to revenues. Something the Kings don't presently have. It doesn't necessarily make you a winner, but its a huge step in the right direction. But I'll give the Lakers credit for almost always making the right decisions with those revenues. Just look at their opposite on the east coast. The Knicks! Same possibilities, but with the wrong decisions..

 

[IfAt1st]

See, I'm WAY to resentful and petty to let ancient, superstar teams that are one injury away from not contending get away with playing their fragile guys big minutes against me.

If I had a team of unimportant nobodies in an NBA backwater that's been made fun of for decades, I'd make sure my team knew to play those superstars INCREDIBLY physical.
I'd make the other coach concerned that if he keeps playing his aging superstars hard against me, they're going to get hurt. I wouldn't care about the techs or the flagrant fouls or the fines.
I'm dead serious.
If these big-city teams *cough Lakers cough* are going to bring fragile superstars against me, I'm going to make sure they are afraid for their health.

Sound familiar? Oh, maybe my approach is a bit closer to Jerry Sloan's than I realized - I knew there was a reason I liked that guy...

This namby-pamby, nice-guy go-along-to-get-along BS is REALLY getting old by the Kings.