|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
THE_SHOES
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 29556
Location: Taiwan
|
 Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Which is why when Jackson came aboard he left... Things haven't been compelety in the GM's hands since...
_________________
"According to ESPN.com's conference projections, the Lakers will finish 12th in the West, which prompted Bryant to tweet earlier this offseason, "12th I see.." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
loseyourname
Star Player
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 1531
|
| Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | Kiki at least has the huevos to pull moves that'll benefit the team despite risk.
You don't go from 27 wins to a playoff team in a short amount of time without doing so. |
You're giving Kiki too much credit, Mike. In fact, I just looked at a Nuggets history page and it was actually Mike Evans, as interim GM in 2001, that traded Van Exel and La Frentz to clear all of the cap space. Kiki made one good move, trading McDyess for Camby and Nene, and inherited a team bad enough to get 'Melo and that already had a ton of cap space, which even you have to admit, he mostly wasted. Miller was a terrific acquisition, Martin was bonehead. Throwing away picks to get him was even more bonehead.
There's a thin line between bravery and stupidity. Don't be like the Mets, who signed Art Howe just because he was the opposite of Bobby Valentine, only to fire him a year later because he performed even worse.
| Quote: | I'm tired of hearing the same jazz every offseason.
"Mitch Kupchak not looking for major moves."
"The Lakers are interested in X-player in the draft." Only to find out that player lacks athletic ability, defensive tools, and any kind of redeeming skill to end up NBA starting material. |
I feel ya. I cringe at all the opportunities that have been passed up. But I also cringe looking at Kiki's track record. It's nice that his team has turned around, but looking at what he's actually done, it hasn't been much. If turning a bad team into an average team is that impressive, why are Jeff Bzdelik and Eric Musselman not head coaches? Because sometimes front offices are smart enough to see that a turnaround is often the result of pure circumstance as much as anything else, and don't automatically credit the guy at the helm just because he was there when it happened, not if he continually made bad moves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WutupLA
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 282
|
| Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I will keep my stand on the NBA Draft. It is just as tough to draft in the early part of teh 1st round as it is to draft in the bottom. If you think that is laughable then you don't know much about drafting and scouting. If you have seven attractive prospects that could go in any order, 1-7, you are going to have a tough time picking from one of them. You have to invite them all to workouts, give thorough evaluations on each, and decide which is the best fit for the franchise. When it comes time to pick that player, the pressure is you to get the right guy to carry the team for the long term. But if something goes wrong with the player, like if he goes bust, he gets injured, or never pans out, the blame gets put on the GM. Especially if the other 6 prospects that the didn't pick, end up becoming All-Stars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You're giving Kiki too much credit, Mike. In fact, I just looked at a Nuggets history page and it was actually Mike Evans, as interim GM in 2001, that traded Van Exel and La Frentz to clear all of the cap space. Kiki made one good move, trading McDyess for Camby and Nene, and inherited a team bad enough to get 'Melo and that already had a ton of cap space, which even you have to admit, he mostly wasted. Miller was a terrific acquisition, Martin was bonehead. Throwing away picks to get him was even more bonehead. |
Disagree, in the sense that I think Kiki was pressured to use the the capspace up. He sought other FAs who didn't want to go to Denver, but the team was clearly on the upswing.
Throwing away picks to get Kmart was a boneheaded move? Moves like that are basically to not to screw the other team over. That's why players like Ben Wallace get sent for Grant Hill, Diaw for Joe Johnson, picks for KMart. You're not burning bridges with the other GM for future trades down the line.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dennis_D
LG Contributor
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 2017
Location: North Dallas
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loseyourname wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | Kiki at least has the huevos to pull moves that'll benefit the team despite risk.
You don't go from 27 wins to a playoff team in a short amount of time without doing so. |
You're giving Kiki too much credit, Mike. In fact, I just looked at a Nuggets history page and it was actually Mike Evans, as interim GM in 2001, that traded Van Exel and La Frentz to clear all of the cap space. Kiki made one good move, trading McDyess for Camby and Nene, and inherited a team bad enough to get 'Melo and that already had a ton of cap space, which even you have to admit, he mostly wasted. Miller was a terrific acquisition, Martin was bonehead. Throwing away picks to get him was even more bonehead. |
Could you show a link for the Nuggets history page. From Wikipedia.org: | Wikipedia wrote: | | On August 9, 2001; Vandeweghe was named to the Nuggets' General Manager position. |
HoopsHype has his first deal on 9/25/01 and the Van Exel and LaFrentz deal on 2/21/02.
Kikki inherited a team that had gone 40-42 the year before. It's five starters were Nick Van Exel (29), Voshon Lenard (27), James Posey (24), Antonio McDyess (26) and Raef LaFrentz (24).
Almost right after he started, his best player McDyess went down with a potentially career ending injury. Kiki then blew up the team, trading away McDyess for Camby then giving away NVE and LaFrentz for scrub players and a late first round pick. The Nuggets plummeted to 27-55.
He wasted a #5 pick on Nikoloz Tskitishvili. His #7 pick Nene has shown potential, but Amare Stoudemire and Caron Butler were available and have had better careers. The Nuggets then stumbled to a 17-65 season.
Kiki drafted Carmelo over Bosh and Wade and signed Andre Miller and Earl Boykins as FA's. With Camby have his first healthy season in a long time, the Nuggets bounced back to a 43-39 and a 1-4 first round exit.
Kiki then acquired Kenyon Martin, the Nuggest collapsed, Kiki fired coach Bzdelik, fired interim coach Michael Cooper and eventually hired coach George Karl, the Ron Artest of NBA coaches. The Nuggets took off under Karl, improved to 49-33, but still lost 1-4 in the first round.
This season, the Nuggets have as their startes Andre Miller (29), Ruben Patterson (30), Carmelo Anthony (21), Kenyon Martin (28) and Marcus Camby (31). The bench is also veterans. The team was hot and cold in an easy division and struggled to a 44-38 record. George Karl has turned the team against him and the team lost 1-4 in the first round.
So, Kiki took a 40-42 team with a young set of starters and after five seasons (two of which were disasters), he has built an old 44-38 team. Not impressive in my book.
_________________
<-- My avatar is Margaret Nolan from one of the Carry On films. She was the girl who got painted gold in "Goldfinger". Thanks to CaliRyderX for identifying her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Addicus
Star Player
Joined: 02 Sep 2005
Posts: 9642
Location: Dave's Pimp Palace
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KOBE 2.0 wrote: | | TEEGUNN wrote: | Well, you CAN put some blame on Smush. He has been our starting PG for the whole season. And the guy DOES have a lot of talent. But apparently not a lot of heart or brains (or a jumpshot).
The Smush defenders will tell you that this is just lesson one in the learning experience of Smush Parker, and that eventually he will be an excellent starting PG.
I don't agree. Smush Parker will never be at the level to be the starting PG for our Los Angeles Lakers. |
If i'm not mistaken, Mitch was hopeful YES hopeful McKie the deadman was gonna be our starting PG early on.
Smush started the seasoon with confidence, and from there on people had hope but people forgot to mention that a guy with no experience was probably gonna fall-out and he did in the end of the year and mostly in the series. |
This is more of the truth than Smush has no talent, blah, blah, blah.
Inexperience will do that. Rear it's ugly head at the wrong time. Also, the situation probably gave Smush some of the humility he needs to make himself a better player. If he is really any good - those last 3 games will force him to push himself further. If not, he was cheap and we'll let him go.
Back to our GM - he has done a piss poor job getting us veteran help in the last 2 years. Each of the MLE signings have been disastrous. This is a problem with the complete top brass (Mitch and the Buss Boys). Could Kiki do any better with the decision making process currently in place?
_________________
Stop crying and start doing.
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/addicusbrown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | 1. Ian Mahinmi is a project in waiting considering they're winning championships.
2. Beno Udrih is a better player than Sasha. I think that was proven.
3. Sato? I may agree.
4. Leandro Barbosa... they drafted him.... guess they don't need him.
5. Salmons would be a great triangle PG. Scola is playing well overseas. Holcomb is a project.
6. Parker is proven.
What does that mean? The San Antonio Spurs didn't make 4-5 years of mistakes. Almost every year they stole a player. |
Ummm,
1. Mahinmi < Bynum
2. Udrih = Smush
3. Sato < Sasha
4. Barbosa (best player besides Parker) traded away
5. Salmons (traded for Speedy Claxton) Plays F - not as good as Walton
6. Parker - great pick
So they got Parker, projects and bench players, two contributors (Barbosa and Salmons, both of whom they traded away). How is significantly better than Bynum, Turiaf, Walton, Cook and Sasha? And if you stick to your point that RC is much better than Mitch, you still haven't answered this:
RC isn't leaving San Antonio, so where does that leave us? Are there any other GMs you can reccomend? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| WutupLA wrote: | | I will keep my stand on the NBA Draft. It is just as tough to draft in the early part of teh 1st round as it is to draft in the bottom. If you think that is laughable then you don't know much about drafting and scouting. If you have seven attractive prospects that could go in any order, 1-7, you are going to have a tough time picking from one of them. You have to invite them all to workouts, give thorough evaluations on each, and decide which is the best fit for the franchise. When it comes time to pick that player, the pressure is you to get the right guy to carry the team for the long term. But if something goes wrong with the player, like if he goes bust, he gets injured, or never pans out, the blame gets put on the GM. Especially if the other 6 prospects that the didn't pick, end up becoming All-Stars. |
Again, you are trying to get there, and there is some validity to what you are saying (pressure, scrutiny etc.) but no one will agree that a GM would prefer to have a #15 pick than a #7 pick. You know this, that is why you have softened your previous point from "It is easier to draft later" to "just as tough".
Don't cling to a sinking ship, Captain. Climb aboard the SS Knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WutupLA
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 282
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | WutupLA wrote: | | I will keep my stand on the NBA Draft. It is just as tough to draft in the early part of teh 1st round as it is to draft in the bottom. If you think that is laughable then you don't know much about drafting and scouting. If you have seven attractive prospects that could go in any order, 1-7, you are going to have a tough time picking from one of them. You have to invite them all to workouts, give thorough evaluations on each, and decide which is the best fit for the franchise. When it comes time to pick that player, the pressure is you to get the right guy to carry the team for the long term. But if something goes wrong with the player, like if he goes bust, he gets injured, or never pans out, the blame gets put on the GM. Especially if the other 6 prospects that the didn't pick, end up becoming All-Stars. |
Again, you are trying to get there, and there is some validity to what you are saying (pressure, scrutiny etc.) but no one will agree that a GM would prefer to have a #15 pick than a #7 pick. You know this, that is why you have softened your previous point from "It is easier to draft later" to "just as tough".
Don't cling to a sinking ship, Captain. Climb aboard the SS Knowledge. |
No clue what you are talking about, this ship is well afloat, and this argument has already been won. You Mitch lovers are riding around on little dingy boats trying to poke holes underneath. I am already there and I have already made my point, you are twisting it around. There have been instances where teams have traded down to the #15 pick because there was more value at the mid-first round then there was in the lottery range. I think you need to buy the book "NBA Draft for Dummies" and while you are at it sign up a subscription for Mitch as well. Easier to draft later, yea I still do believe that, it can be just as tough either way, but ultimately picking at the end of the first round involves little pressure to make the right pick, and making the decision becomes easier as you don't have much of a choice. But in no way does this mean, any GM including Mitch has the right to just sit on his arse because he has the #30 pick in the 1st round. No matter what you still have to scout and work out prospects. I question if Mitch has even done this while the Lakers were winning titles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Ummm,
1. Mahinmi < Bynum
2. Udrih = Smush
3. Sato < Sasha
4. Barbosa (best player besides Parker) traded away
5. Salmons (traded for Speedy Claxton) Plays F - not as good as Walton
6. Parker - great pick
So they got Parker, projects and bench players, two contributors (Barbosa and Salmons, both of whom they traded away). How is significantly better than Bynum, Turiaf, Walton, Cook and Sasha? And if you stick to your point that RC is much better than Mitch, you still haven't answered this:
RC isn't leaving San Antonio, so where does that leave us? Are there any other GMs you can reccomend? |
Oh, so you're counting free agent pick ups as well?
Then you forgot about
Nick Van Exel
Michael Finley
Bruce Bowen
Nazr Mohammed
Brent Barry
Robert Horry
Have you seen Mahimmi play? What makes you think he's automatically better than Bynum?
Same with Sato and Sasha.
Some of the players they don't even keep because the roster was improved through free agency. There's no room for rookies sitting. So what if there are rookies that got traded away? At least they made the pick for a strong player and had the option of keeping him, opposed to drafting a non-starter.... and then trying to play them as starters.
Which brings us to the point. Kiki is available. I think he's a bigger risk-taking GM who understands what drafting athleticism, defense, and skills is about. Being a Laker GM only makes it easier for him, and he's proven he can improve a team in a very short amount of time.
Really, tired of the apologies. You know what's the biggest difference?
The Spurs have been winning championships since 1999. They are still in championship contention.
The Lakers were winning championships until 2002. Fell out of the playoffs.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mike, Mike, Mike. I don't discount your points about the Spurs. Great franchise and the class of the league right now. But now you are getting silly trying to make a point about Mitch. We both know that the Lakers are rebuiding, and are exceeding expectations in the process. They have a good young core, and great coaches. Everyone on the roster has improved, and are meshing well together. But, because I included a training camp invitee (Smush) as part of the discussion, you throw out my point about the draft picks.
I am not trying to convince you that Mitch is better than RC. I am saying that the difference is not nearly as great as you think it is. If there is such a difference between a Genius like RC and an Idiot who needs to be fired like Mitch, then why can't it be so obvious looking at the draft?
Again, I reiterate "So they got Parker, projects and bench players, two contributors (Barbosa and Salmons, both of whom they traded away). How is significantly better than Bynum, Turiaf, Walton, Cook and Sasha? And if you stick to your point that RC is much better than Mitch, you still haven't answered this:
RC isn't leaving San Antonio, so where does that leave us? Are there any other GMs you can reccomend?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WutupLA wrote: | | JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | WutupLA wrote: | | I will keep my stand on the NBA Draft. It is just as tough to draft in the early part of teh 1st round as it is to draft in the bottom. If you think that is laughable then you don't know much about drafting and scouting. If you have seven attractive prospects that could go in any order, 1-7, you are going to have a tough time picking from one of them. You have to invite them all to workouts, give thorough evaluations on each, and decide which is the best fit for the franchise. When it comes time to pick that player, the pressure is you to get the right guy to carry the team for the long term. But if something goes wrong with the player, like if he goes bust, he gets injured, or never pans out, the blame gets put on the GM. Especially if the other 6 prospects that the didn't pick, end up becoming All-Stars. |
Again, you are trying to get there, and there is some validity to what you are saying (pressure, scrutiny etc.) but no one will agree that a GM would prefer to have a #15 pick than a #7 pick. You know this, that is why you have softened your previous point from "It is easier to draft later" to "just as tough".
Don't cling to a sinking ship, Captain. Climb aboard the SS Knowledge. |
No clue what you are talking about, this ship is well afloat, and this argument has already been won. You Mitch lovers are riding around on little dingy boats trying to poke holes underneath. I am already there and I have already made my point, you are twisting it around. There have been instances where teams have traded down to the #15 pick because there was more value at the mid-first round then there was in the lottery range. |
They do that because they receive extra compensation such as additional picks, not because as you say in your original post "It's easier to draft later than earlier
| WutupLA wrote: | | I think you need to buy the book "NBA Draft for Dummies" and while you are at it sign up a subscription for Mitch as well. Easier to draft later, yea I still do believe that, it can be just as tough either way |
Umm, it is easier to draft later, but it can be just as tough either way. Wow, are you reading what you type? Also, you can't subscribe to books, you buy them and read them.
| WutupLA wrote: | | but ultimately picking at the end of the first round involves little pressure to make the right pick, and making the decision becomes easier as you don't have much of a choice. |
Mathematically it might make it easier in that there is one less player to consider as each player is chosen, but it makes it harder to find a good player, because fewer good players are left. It is easy to choose a good player among many good players, difficult to choose a good player among many mediocre or borderline players. See the point of drafting is to find someone to help your team, and there are more of those guys early in the draft, making it easier to be successful, and less at the end of the draft making it more difficult to be successful.
| WutupLA wrote: | | But in no way does this mean, any GM including Mitch has the right to just sit on his arse because he has the #30 pick in the 1st round. No matter what you still have to scout and work out prospects. |
No arguement here, Mitch and every other GM has to pick players.
| WutupLA wrote: | | I question if Mitch has even done this while the Lakers were winning titles. |
Hmmm, YOU question Mitch's abilities? Well let's see, you know who DOESN'T question it?
Buss - the most successful owner in sports. He was so confident in Mitch that he let JERRY WEST go.
West - who hired, tutored, mentored, trained, respects, reccommended, and continues to endorse Mitch.
Phil - he came back to the Lakers, knowing Mitch as well as anyone. They are in agreement on the FINAL decisions regarding personnel moves. Why would he work for an organization that employs an incompetent GM?
Kobe - Kobe re-signed with the Lakers knowing all about Mitch. Why would he work for an organization that employs an incompetent GM?
Carry on Edward John Smith, Captain of the Titanic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | Mike, Mike, Mike. I don't discount your points about the Spurs. Great franchise and the class of the league right now. But now you are getting silly trying to make a point about Mitch. We both know that the Lakers are rebuiding, and are exceeding expectations in the process. They have a good young core, and great coaches. Everyone on the roster has improved, and are meshing well together. But, because I included a training camp invitee (Smush) as part of the discussion, you throw out my point about the draft picks. |
I disagree about exceeding expectations.
Like I said, in the 80s, Kareem had Mychal Thompson backing him up. Norm Nixon got traded for Byron Scott. Worthy took Jamaal Wilkes slot. Bob McAdoo.
Point? It turned a 4 year championship window into a 10 year championship window.
Think. If Kupchak drafted like West in the 80s, we'd have Arenas, Boozer, Prince.... and a declining Shaq.
But still, in Finals contention. Crazy right? Yet, that's what the Spurs did to extend their championship window. Parker. Ginobili.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobeWalksOnWater
Starting Rotation
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 464
Location: Kwame Land
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mitch, if you truly want to help the lakers succeed, fire yourself. hire kiki 
_________________
Machineba + Black Mamba + La Mamba + Baby Mamba + Pauba + Farmamba + Radmamba + Zenba = Winba 
"Losing magnifies everything." -KobeButler |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VEN_150
Starting Rotation
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 374
Location: VEN_150, where else?
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mitch is doing OK. His pickups of Mckie and Jackson stink but otherwise he's been ok on draft picks and the kwame trade. Getting a decent PG will be a test for him this offseason though, hopefully we at least get this done. Its funny, one more rebound last week and this thread wouldn't be here today. |
|
| 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
|
|
