View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
slavavov Star Player
Joined: 03 Oct 2003 Posts: 8288 Location: Santa Monica
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject: Why do people think we need another superstar to win a title? |
|
|
Like everyone else, I'm somewhat disappointed (but not surprised) that the Lakers didn't make any trades, despite the bold confidence of emplay and Lionel (whom I trust). I still think this team as is can make the playoffs, so I'm not that disappointed, because making the playoffs this year will make our long-term prognosis look a lot better.
But all these rumors about T-Mac, KG, Bosh, etc. have me thinking: why do so many people, including possibly Dr. Buss himself, think that Kobe needs another superstar of his caliber (or close) next to him for us to contend again? Talent may be the first thing you need, but it isn't everything. You don't need THAT much talent to win a title nowadays. The Bulls had Jordan, Pippen was a star but not a superstar, and then everyone else was just a role player. But those teams had great chemistry and won with defense. The Spurs have Duncan, one borderline All-Star (Ginobili), and role players. That's been good enough for 2 titles in 3 years.
Besides the fact that it's extremely hard to acquire someone like KG, T-Mac, etc., all we need IMO is one legit 2nd option who's maybe a star, but not a superstar, and a couple cheap role players who can hit outside shots, play good defense, and do the little things. Maybe someone like Boozer (at full strength) would fit the bill. If he could get 17-18 pts a game, 8-10 rebounds, and play good enough man post defense, then that sounds good to me. Lamar can get 14-15 ppg being the 3rd option, and Kobe will get his 28-32. That sounds like a solid core. If those 3 guys fit in together in the offense, then you just surround them with dependable role players, make sure the team plays good defense as a whole, and just let all that develop into a contender.
This is one reason the 2007/2008 plan annoys me so much. Not only are they wasting 2-3 years of Kobe's prime to try to get someone who probably won't even be available, but they're also making this sacrifice for someone like Amare, Lebron, or Bosh. If someone like Boozer, R. Lewis, J O'neal, i.e. a 2nd or 3rd tier player is available this summer, why not go after one of them right away and, assuming you get one of them, kill this BS plan and start focusing on building around this new core you have? I'm sure Buss, Phil, and even Mitch have a long-term plan, but I'm not sure if it's the best one. Why go for the home run when a single or double will suffice?
Sorry for the long post, but I needed to rant a little. I could be wrong about this, but this is how I feel about these pipe trade scenarios and the current state of this org. _________________ Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers |
|
Back to top |
|
|
drzucchini Franchise Player
Joined: 28 Sep 2002 Posts: 16327
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:18 pm Post subject: Re: Why do people think we need another superstar to win a title? |
|
|
slavavov wrote: | Talent may be the first thing you need, but it isn't everything. You don't need THAT much talent to win a title nowadays. The Bulls had Jordan, Pippen was a star but not a superstar, and then everyone else was just a role player. |
Pippen was merely just a star? Now I've heard it all. He was not only the best defender at his position but also the most versatile defender in the whole league. You're underestimating his and Jordan's ability to complete shut down opposing team's backcourts.
Then there was a certain Dennis Rodman. Yes, he was a role player--a role player who pulled down 15 boards a game and was an excellent defender in general. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tgf5 Franchise Player
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 11581 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think it has to be a supersar either, but something like 2 good players, or a few role players can help win a title. Getting another superstar is fun though, sells more and people watch more. Having another superstar also takes pressure off Kobe making it easier to win a title. Basically, would you rather have Kobe, KG (just talkin scenarios here) or Kobe and 2 players who aren't quite all stars but are pretty good like Rashard Lewis and I don't know, Chris Duhon?
I am NOT saying Lewis + Duhon = KG, just scenario of a superstar and pretty good players.
Last edited by tgf5 on Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Laker_Dynasty Franchise Player
Joined: 21 May 2001 Posts: 11831 Location: West LA
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pippen was voted as one of the top 50 players ever and he's not a Superstar? Okay, so what's the definition of a Superstar? Top 10 greatest ever? _________________ Just chill and watch the new Dynasty evolve...
Time for the Lakers to create a whole new legacy! We want 10 more trophies boys! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shnjb Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Oct 2002 Posts: 13320
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's either two superstars or a team of all-star caliber players.
Do you think we're even close to having a team full of all-star caliber players?
If not, then two superstars is the only route to championship.
And yes, Pippen was a superstar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
minervafilms Starting Rotation
Joined: 25 Jun 2005 Posts: 302
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject: Re: Why do people think we need another superstar to win a title? |
|
|
slavavov wrote: | You don't need THAT much talent to win a title nowadays. The Bulls had Jordan, Pippen was a star but not a superstar, and then everyone else was just a role player. But those teams had great chemistry and won with defense. The Spurs have Duncan, one borderline All-Star (Ginobili), and role players. That's been good enough for 2 titles in 3 years. |
Wow. Just wow. Pippen was merely a star? Tony Parker, leading the league in field goal % and points in the paint as a point guard, is a role player? What world do you live in?
Bryant is not good enough to win a championship without a second, equally potent 'superstar' option. That's nothing against him personally. But the only teams who win championships these days are the ones whose MVPs are dominating front court players (Shaq, Duncan, BWallace, etc). That's why the Spurs will be standing at the end of this year, while the Mavs, despite their amazing regular season, will not.
That's also why KB + KG would bring the Lakers a lot closer to contenders than KB + TMac. Not that either tandem will ever happen, of course. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
slavavov Star Player
Joined: 03 Oct 2003 Posts: 8288 Location: Santa Monica
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject: Re: Why do people think we need another superstar to win a title? |
|
|
drzucchini wrote: | slavavov wrote: | Talent may be the first thing you need, but it isn't everything. You don't need THAT much talent to win a title nowadays. The Bulls had Jordan, Pippen was a star but not a superstar, and then everyone else was just a role player. |
Pippen was merely just a star? Now I've heard it all. He was not only the best defender at his position but also the most versatile defender in the whole league. You're underestimating his and Jordan's ability to complete shut down opposing team's backcourts.
Then there was a certain Dennis Rodman. Yes, he was a role player--a role player who pulled down 15 boards a game and was an excellent defender in general. |
When I say Pippen wasn't a superstar, I mean he probably wasn't the same calber of player that guys like KG, Lebron, Kobe, Duncan, etc. are. I remember how good Pippen was, but he wasn't enough of a superstar to build an entire team around. That's the kind of player I'm talking about. Kobe is that kind of player, and so are a few of these other guys in these pipe scenarios.
But I guess that's all besides the main point I'm trying to make. The definition of a "superstar" in the NBA is vague anyway. We all have different ideas of what makes one. _________________ Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pokoy Moderator
Joined: 12 Apr 2001 Posts: 14545
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pippen led the Bulls to a 50+ win season when MJ retired for the first time, something Kobe hasn't been able to do without Shaq yet -- and we consider Kobe a superstar. I think Pip deserves more credit than he's given, and I admit that I'm one of those who usually looks past him. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
slavavov Star Player
Joined: 03 Oct 2003 Posts: 8288 Location: Santa Monica
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe I should've said "franchise player" instead of superstar. As good as Pippen was, and I remember just how good and valuable he was, I don't think he was a bona-fide franchise player like Jordan or Kobe or a few others. I hope that clears that up, my bad. _________________ Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers
Last edited by slavavov on Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
un1bomber Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Feb 2006 Posts: 703
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:56 pm Post subject: Re: Why do people think we need another superstar to win a title? |
|
|
slavavov wrote: | The Spurs have Duncan, one borderline All-Star (Ginobili), and role players. That's been good enough for 2 titles in 3 years.
|
uhhh newsflash... i think the spurs had some guy named parker who made the all star team this year over melo... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
targetman Star Player
Joined: 04 Sep 2004 Posts: 5503
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I actually don't think we need a superstar to win, but I DO think we need a veteran point guard who can score, something the Lakers said they wanted. Guess what? $8 million worth of expiring contracts later we decide we "love" the guys we have and we don't need one anymore. Now it is decided that our existing players are going to be motivated because they have been publicly humiliated.
Like the Sacramento game wasn't humiliating enough. _________________ Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
astrallionheart Star Player
Joined: 17 May 2005 Posts: 1292 Location: Windbloom
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
slavavov wrote: | Maybe I should've said "franchise player" instead of superstar. As good as Pippen was, and I remember just how good and valuable he was, I don't think he was a bona-fide franchise player like Jordan or Kobe or a few others. I hope that clears that up, my bad. |
So what seperates him from the greats? The ability to drible through people's legs and do streetball moves? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hector the Pup Retired Number
Joined: 25 Jul 2002 Posts: 35946 Location: L.A.
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think anyone ever said another superstar or franchise player.
What the team needs is CONSISTENCY as opposed to what they have now, which is Kobe and a collection of guys who can score 2 points a couple of nights and play horrible D and then, out of the blue, drop 20 and actually show some energy on the defensive end. It's a collection of Jekyl and Hydes with the exception being Walton who for some reason has embraced the suckitude. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
astrallionheart Star Player
Joined: 17 May 2005 Posts: 1292 Location: Windbloom
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hector the Pup wrote: | I don't think anyone ever said another superstar or franchise player.
What the team needs is CONSISTENCY as opposed to what they have now, which is Kobe and a collection of guys who can score 2 points a couple of nights and play horrible D and then, out of the blue, drop 20 and actually show some energy on the defensive end. It's a collection of Jekyl and Hydes with the exception being Walton who for some reason has embraced the suckitude. |
With Kobe, Butler, and Chutky last year, Walton had more "alpha males" to hide behind the fact the he needs the opposing team to ignore him to thrive. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Showtime_Returns Star Player
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 1730 Location: Somewhere looking for a magic wand
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We don't need a superstar, but we need to get rid of Lamar "sackless" Odom. No team with him on it is ever going to win a title(for salary and character reasons). We don't need a superstar to win but we do need an allstar and a consistent starter.
Lets say:add healthy Kenyon Martin and Earl Watson and subtract Odom and we have a team that would make Western Conference finals. K-mart and Watson plug two huge holes defensively while adding a bit of scoring and playmaking.
Couple that with years of smart free agent signings and solid draft picks(way to drop the ball again Mitch) and we would be competing for a title.
Detroit, San Antonio, Phoenix, Dallas, Indiana are 5 examples of teams that used smart trades and drafting instead of a the 2 superstar approach to become contenders. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Charles Star Player
Joined: 22 Sep 2004 Posts: 4525
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
because the only way the Lakers will make trades to improve the team is to sell tickets by acquiring more bigname players.
solid acquisitions like Boozer apparently aren't good enough. They think the fans will settle with mediocrity as long as Kobe sells tickets. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|