Forbes: How The Lakers Got Lousy
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
USCandLakers
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 19955

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:40 pm    Post subject:

Dr. Laker wrote:
LAKERSCMXCIX wrote:
Let's not forget that this team was one trade veto away from being one of the greatest teams ever assembled by buss


Except the trade didn't go through. Whine and cry about it, sure . . . for a minute. Then get up off your butt and execute Plan B (which should have already been in place, since 90% of all trade talks collapse).

Jerry West had a Plan B (Mutombo) in place if Shaq had decided to stay in Orlando.

Jason Kidd passed on the Spurs after a hard press and Buford went for Plan B (Brent Barry).

When the CP3 deal feel through, Jimmy had a box of Kleenex.


Not many teams get second chances, Jim had a second chance and he blew it.

Truth be told, I'd take the signing of Phil over CP3 every single time. Phil is far more valuable.
_________________
A banana is killed every time a terrible thread or post is made. Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
salami
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Aug 2009
Posts: 1426

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:08 am    Post subject:

USCandLakers wrote:
Dr. Laker wrote:
LAKERSCMXCIX wrote:
Let's not forget that this team was one trade veto away from being one of the greatest teams ever assembled by buss


Except the trade didn't go through. Whine and cry about it, sure . . . for a minute. Then get up off your butt and execute Plan B (which should have already been in place, since 90% of all trade talks collapse).

Jerry West had a Plan B (Mutombo) in place if Shaq had decided to stay in Orlando.

Jason Kidd passed on the Spurs after a hard press and Buford went for Plan B (Brent Barry).

When the CP3 deal feel through, Jimmy had a box of Kleenex.


Not many teams get second chances, Jim had a second chance and he blew it.

Truth be told, I'd take the signing of Phil over CP3 every single time. Phil is far more valuable.


Jim Buss had only one real chance at getting it right. After firing Mike Brown, the right coaching hire to lead the superteam roster had the potential to maintain our momentum of elite status for many more years.

After that was botched, the window closed. The best they could do at that point was hire the right people to pick up the shattered pieces of a once great franchise and hope for an efficient rebuild. By this time, getting it right was no longer an option. But getting it wrong could cost decades...
_________________
IM THE GREATEST HITTER IN THE WORLD!!!1!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
leor_77
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 23 Mar 2012
Posts: 21920

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:07 am    Post subject:

Why the (bleep) are we quoting forbes, like they actually know anything about basketball. Wow, you need talent to win...Jim Buss might not be the best person for the job. Shocking!

Excuse me while I look for "Home and Garden" articles on the Lakers.


Last edited by leor_77 on Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:33 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wilkes52
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Posts: 2415
Location: Far from home

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:22 am    Post subject:

Forbes minimizes (through omission) an important perspective. I can't identify a major American sports franchise of the past forty or fifty years (as successful as the Jerry Buss Laker business) that conducted succession planning and leadership replacement such as to extend its prior rate of success in the near-term or mid-term. There's been no precedent for it. There is fall-off to be expected from unparalleled levels of sports franchise success. Genius is a rarity.

Rename the article "How the downturn in Laker excellence followed an industry-wide pattern"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
OCWA
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 3660

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:04 am    Post subject:

24 wrote:
You guys realize that when we win the next title, we're not letting you back in the club?


Complaining, yelling, being angry, etc, is all part of being a team fanatic. It could be argued that those who get the angriest at their team and do the most complaining are actually the biggest fans.

Maybe it is them who will decide admittance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:33 am    Post subject:

I am holding my breath for the Laker article in next month's Popular Mechanics.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
USCandLakers
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 19955

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:36 am    Post subject:

salami wrote:
USCandLakers wrote:
Dr. Laker wrote:
LAKERSCMXCIX wrote:
Let's not forget that this team was one trade veto away from being one of the greatest teams ever assembled by buss


Except the trade didn't go through. Whine and cry about it, sure . . . for a minute. Then get up off your butt and execute Plan B (which should have already been in place, since 90% of all trade talks collapse).

Jerry West had a Plan B (Mutombo) in place if Shaq had decided to stay in Orlando.

Jason Kidd passed on the Spurs after a hard press and Buford went for Plan B (Brent Barry).

When the CP3 deal feel through, Jimmy had a box of Kleenex.


Not many teams get second chances, Jim had a second chance and he blew it.

Truth be told, I'd take the signing of Phil over CP3 every single time. Phil is far more valuable.


Jim Buss had only one real chance at getting it right. After firing Mike Brown, the right coaching hire to lead the superteam roster had the potential to maintain our momentum of elite status for many more years.

After that was botched, the window closed. The best they could do at that point was hire the right people to pick up the shattered pieces of a once great franchise and hope for an efficient rebuild. By this time, getting it right was no longer an option. But getting it wrong could cost decades...


Sounds like a book narration.
_________________
A banana is killed every time a terrible thread or post is made. Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:59 am    Post subject:

24 wrote:
You guys realize that when we win the next title, we're not letting you back in the club?


How can you let them back in when they never leave? They're just complaining while buying the drinks and not tipping.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TheElectronica
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Jan 2010
Posts: 1392

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 11:05 am    Post subject:

Forbes assuming running a basketball team is like running a typical business...

Most owners are just fans. Some are more so than others. Luckily, we have owners that are as big of Laker fans as we are. They'll get back eventually.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Telleris
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2371

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:39 pm    Post subject:

kray28_ wrote:
Dr. Laker wrote:
This is the key paragraph:

Quote:
If you plan to be part of an enduringly elite organization, succession has to be rigorously meritocratic, especially when family or old friends are involved. Otherwise you fail to renew your organization, and you fail to “always be having a revolution” in the manner that G.K. Chesterton described.


I would amend that slightly - ownership can be hereditary, but senior management has to be merit based, otherwise all you have is echo chambering and back slapping over cocktails.


The primary issue is that Jim Buss is involved in any form of basketball operations. In Jeanie's case, being involved on the business side, she comes with the requisite business management credentials. But what credentials or any level of measurable merit does Jim bring with him?

So this point is a pretty important one and very accurate in terms of describing a certain cause of dysfunction within the organization.


The business side could be run by an idiot, the league is set up to promote competitive balance at the basketball operations side, there is literally no competition on the business side, and beyond that, the nba does it for you half the time.

For example, Nike and the NBA itself promoted Jordan to the world, Chicago just got to reap all the benefits of it, and Kobe has been similar to the Lakers. David Stern did more of the legwork, probably in the order of 10:1 to the bottomline of the value of every nba team than its own business operations.
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: Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:05 pm    Post subject:

kray28_ wrote:
The primary issue is that Jim Buss is involved in any form of basketball operations. In Jeanie's case, being involved on the business side, she comes with the requisite business management credentials. But what credentials or any level of measurable merit does Jim bring with him?

So this point is a pretty important one and very accurate in terms of describing a certain cause of dysfunction within the organization.


Let's take a look at Jim Buss' career as per wikipedia:
1.) Small business with friend - Failed after friend dies
2.) LA Lazers soccer team - Failed after team folded
3.) Horse trainer - Failed after being unprofitable
4.) LA Lakers - Rudy T - fail, Mike Brown - fail, Mike D'Antoni - fail (and this is just coaching decisions)

I guess with that track record he's a natural for leading basketball operations... into the ground. After this debacle maybe he's humbled himself to run things his father did, by letting the basketball people do their jobs and just give insight on the major decisions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:10 pm    Post subject:

LAkers 4 Life wrote:
kray28_ wrote:
The primary issue is that Jim Buss is involved in any form of basketball operations. In Jeanie's case, being involved on the business side, she comes with the requisite business management credentials. But what credentials or any level of measurable merit does Jim bring with him?

So this point is a pretty important one and very accurate in terms of describing a certain cause of dysfunction within the organization.


Let's take a look at Jim Buss' career as per wikipedia:
1.) Small business with friend - Failed after friend dies
2.) LA Lazers soccer team - Failed after team folded
3.) Horse trainer - Failed after being unprofitable
4.) LA Lakers - Rudy T - fail, Mike Brown - fail, Mike D'Antoni - fail (and this is just coaching decisions)

I guess with that track record he's a natural for leading basketball operations... into the ground. After this debacle maybe he's humbled himself to run things his father did, by letting the basketball people do their jobs and just give insight on the major decisions.


He's here to stay.

You, as a "fan", are free to leave though. It's the most sincere way to protest that his ownership is unacceptable to you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
70sdude
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Feb 2009
Posts: 4567

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:44 am    Post subject:

Having seen the effects of a persistently self-indulgent, stubborn, limited and meddlesome owner of the once-great Dallas Cowboys over the past 18 years, I feel we have great insight towards a very likely Laker future.

I ain't religious, but I pray that Jim Buss may learn to restrain himself from indulging his ego beyond his limitations. I'd like to see him get out of the meddling owner role and instead put the keys to the purple-and-gold vehicle into the hands of smarter business minds.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Voices
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 8287
Location: Oxnard, Ca.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:32 am    Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:
LAkers 4 Life wrote:
kray28_ wrote:
The primary issue is that Jim Buss is involved in any form of basketball operations. In Jeanie's case, being involved on the business side, she comes with the requisite business management credentials. But what credentials or any level of measurable merit does Jim bring with him?

So this point is a pretty important one and very accurate in terms of describing a certain cause of dysfunction within the organization.


Let's take a look at Jim Buss' career as per wikipedia:
1.) Small business with friend - Failed after friend dies
2.) LA Lazers soccer team - Failed after team folded
3.) Horse trainer - Failed after being unprofitable
4.) LA Lakers - Rudy T - fail, Mike Brown - fail, Mike D'Antoni - fail (and this is just coaching decisions)

I guess with that track record he's a natural for leading basketball operations... into the ground. After this debacle maybe he's humbled himself to run things his father did, by letting the basketball people do their jobs and just give insight on the major decisions.


He's here to stay.

You, as a "fan", are free to leave though. It's the most sincere way to protest that his ownership is unacceptable to you.


This current management team just set the record for worst record in Lakers history. Do you think this management team is doing a goof job? At what point and time would you want to replace this management team?
_________________
.....
.....
ALTHOUGH HE STANDS 6 FEET 2 INCHES, JIM BUSS ATTENDED JOCKEY SCHOOL WHEN HE WAS 20.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11264

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:20 pm    Post subject:

The main fault of the article is that it confuses correlation with causation. Let's outline his points (these are what they boil down to):

1. Management has been neglecting an aging roster for some time.

2. You need to avoid entrenchment of big egos.

3. Buss leaving his kids in charge when he died was a mistake.

4. You need to keep bringing in top talent.

And the entire article is essentially using the team's current status as evidence to prove his point -- the Lakers are lousy, and here's how they got that way.

But as others have mentioned, the author seems to have little appreciation of how the league works. Teams rise & fall in cycles. The great teams rise to the top, sustain it as long as possible, and then minimize the down side of the cycle by rebuilding in a hurry. The teams with the means to do so time it so everything falls off the books at once so they can wield maximal spending power. It's how the Lakers were successful in years past, and it's how the Heat did it in this decade.

The Lakers are at that point in the cycle, and it appears they are poised to complete the rebuild in just a couple seasons -- with this season & next being the principal transition years. This just happened to closely follow the death of Dr. Buss, so the author naturally conflated the two. But the plan was in place even before Dr. Buss died, and has only had minor tweaks since then.

So let's go through his points one at a time:

1. They haven't been neglecting an aging roster for a long time. As recently as last season they continued to bring in top talent in order to stay on top -- refer back to the predictions for the team when the Lakers acquired Howard & Nash. And at the time, the decision to bring in MDA to coach Nash could be defended, especially since the author himself says he's agnostic about Phil, who was the only other high-caliber choice. At least the Lakers were reuniting Nash with MDA, and there's a logic to having him coach a team led by Nash, Howard and Kobe.

The other point here is my central point -- the Lakers' overall game plan isn't to try to keep acquiring small pieces to maintain the roster. It's to play it out for all it's worth, then blow it up & start over quickly. It takes advantage of the fact that LA is a free agent destination, the Lakers are a team with resources, and LA fans don't necessarily have the patience to watch the team develop young core players. They have an overarching plan, they stuck to it, and as funny as it is to say, the current season is actually a part of the plan -- it's not evidence that they're doing anything wrong, and it's certainly not evidence for the author's first point.

2. Easy to say for companies in general, but a lot tougher when you're talking about family-owned businesses, where people are NECESSARILY going to be entrenched. This point to me is the weakest one of all -- he's encouraging turnover where it's not practical, and he's also assuming there's a pool of talent out there from which to draw. There really isn't.

3. What alternative is the author suggesting? My only alternative would be to swap Jim & Mitch in the hierarchy, so Jim reports to Mitch, Mitch reports to Jeanie, and Jeanie reports to the family trust (which includes Jim & Jeanie). That said, I think his criticisms of Jeanie are misfounded, and he doesn't recognize the importance of and weight carried by people in the position Jeanie occupies. To me it's a rather naive take, and the author was swayed by the more visible position that Jim occupies. And again, he's confusing correlation with causation -- he implied directly that the arrangement has resulted in the team's current poor position. It hasn't.

4. Okay, so Phil wasn't the solution, according to the author. And neither was MDA. So -- who was? Adelman? Like I said, you can at least defend the MDA choice (if it wasn't going to be Phil), even though it didn't work out with Nash & Howard. The rest of his point is just a whine demonstrating that he's as fickle as some of the fans he writes about. The Showtime era about which he waxes nostalgic also came to an end. The team had some down years before they rebuilt that roster, too. And that 1991 roster ALSO consisted of a top star who burned-out (basketball-wise) in Magic, a second-fiddle (Worthy) who also aged & reached the end of his career, a miscellaneous assortment of role players, and a mediocre coach. So what's so different between his nostalgia for the Showtime era and the roster of today? Not much, really.

The whole article is an exercise in misapplied angst.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 2:40 pm    Post subject:

Voices wrote:
Reflexx wrote:
LAkers 4 Life wrote:
kray28_ wrote:
The primary issue is that Jim Buss is involved in any form of basketball operations. In Jeanie's case, being involved on the business side, she comes with the requisite business management credentials. But what credentials or any level of measurable merit does Jim bring with him?

So this point is a pretty important one and very accurate in terms of describing a certain cause of dysfunction within the organization.


Let's take a look at Jim Buss' career as per wikipedia:
1.) Small business with friend - Failed after friend dies
2.) LA Lazers soccer team - Failed after team folded
3.) Horse trainer - Failed after being unprofitable
4.) LA Lakers - Rudy T - fail, Mike Brown - fail, Mike D'Antoni - fail (and this is just coaching decisions)

I guess with that track record he's a natural for leading basketball operations... into the ground. After this debacle maybe he's humbled himself to run things his father did, by letting the basketball people do their jobs and just give insight on the major decisions.


He's here to stay.

You, as a "fan", are free to leave though. It's the most sincere way to protest that his ownership is unacceptable to you.


This current management team just set the record for worst record in Lakers history. Do you think this management team is doing a goof job? At what point and time would you want to replace this management team?


It doesn't really matter if I'd want to replace the management team. I could hate the management team. However, my constantly complaining about it over and over and over again doesn't change anything.

But I guess it helps that I don't hate the management team. I'm willing to give them a fair shake. No team stays #1 forever. The job of this team is to get us back in contention in a respectable amount of time.

And looking at NBA history, 15 yrs would be mighty respectable.

However, if I kept thinking that they were making bad decisions that would result in them sucking forever then I'd stop being a fan of the team.

I used to ask Clippers fans how they could be fans of a team that was owned by such a horrible person. They didn't seem to care. They agreed he was horrible, but they stayed fans anyway. Never made sense to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Voices
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 8287
Location: Oxnard, Ca.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:37 am    Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:
Voices wrote:
Reflexx wrote:
LAkers 4 Life wrote:
kray28_ wrote:
The primary issue is that Jim Buss is involved in any form of basketball operations. In Jeanie's case, being involved on the business side, she comes with the requisite business management credentials. But what credentials or any level of measurable merit does Jim bring with him?

So this point is a pretty important one and very accurate in terms of describing a certain cause of dysfunction within the organization.


Let's take a look at Jim Buss' career as per wikipedia:
1.) Small business with friend - Failed after friend dies
2.) LA Lazers soccer team - Failed after team folded
3.) Horse trainer - Failed after being unprofitable
4.) LA Lakers - Rudy T - fail, Mike Brown - fail, Mike D'Antoni - fail (and this is just coaching decisions)

I guess with that track record he's a natural for leading basketball operations... into the ground. After this debacle maybe he's humbled himself to run things his father did, by letting the basketball people do their jobs and just give insight on the major decisions.


He's here to stay.

You, as a "fan", are free to leave though. It's the most sincere way to protest that his ownership is unacceptable to you.


This current management team just set the record for worst record in Lakers history. Do you think this management team is doing a goof job? At what point and time would you want to replace this management team?


It doesn't really matter if I'd want to replace the management team. I could hate the management team. However, my constantly complaining about it over and over and over again doesn't change anything.

But I guess it helps that I don't hate the management team. I'm willing to give them a fair shake. No team stays #1 forever. The job of this team is to get us back in contention in a respectable amount of time.

And looking at NBA history, 15 yrs would be mighty respectable.

However, if I kept thinking that they were making bad decisions that would result in them sucking forever then I'd stop being a fan of the team.

I used to ask Clippers fans how they could be fans of a team that was owned by such a horrible person. They didn't seem to care. They agreed he was horrible, but they stayed fans anyway. Never made sense to me.


This management has been making decisions on it's own for about 2 years now, so if you think that is constantly complaining then so be it. During that time we fired MB, hired MDA over PJ, lost our own UFA Dwight Howard, and got exactly nothing for him, traded not 1 but 2 1st round picks for Nash who was an UFA. Not complaining about the money we paid Nash or the trade itself, it's about the TWO 1st round picks. And now there is some talk that we are looking to keep Gasol, please No.

We spent our 1st round draft picks like drunken sailors. This is they way I see it, we should of at least got 1 1st round pick for Dwight (after all 2 1rd. Picks for Nash) we should of used only 1 1st round pick for Nash and we should of traded Gasol and we should of received at least 1 1st Rd. picks for Gasol. If you add that up and I am being conservative we should have 5 1 Rd. picks between now and 2016.

Sure in a couple of the trades we might of had to of taken some bad contracts back but we would have the ability to rebuild with young players or trade the picks for pieces that fit. If you think that management has done a good job that's fine but I also have the right to complain hopeful without out bloggers complaining about my complaining

Not to mention the Kobe extension.
_________________
.....
.....
ALTHOUGH HE STANDS 6 FEET 2 INCHES, JIM BUSS ATTENDED JOCKEY SCHOOL WHEN HE WAS 20.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:45 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
The main fault of the article is that it confuses correlation with causation. Let's outline his points (these are what they boil down to):

1. Management has been neglecting an aging roster for some time.

2. You need to avoid entrenchment of big egos.

3. Buss leaving his kids in charge when he died was a mistake.

4. You need to keep bringing in top talent.

And the entire article is essentially using the team's current status as evidence to prove his point -- the Lakers are lousy, and here's how they got that way.

But as others have mentioned, the author seems to have little appreciation of how the league works. Teams rise & fall in cycles. The great teams rise to the top, sustain it as long as possible, and then minimize the down side of the cycle by rebuilding in a hurry. The teams with the means to do so time it so everything falls off the books at once so they can wield maximal spending power. It's how the Lakers were successful in years past, and it's how the Heat did it in this decade.

The Lakers are at that point in the cycle, and it appears they are poised to complete the rebuild in just a couple seasons -- with this season & next being the principal transition years. This just happened to closely follow the death of Dr. Buss, so the author naturally conflated the two. But the plan was in place even before Dr. Buss died, and has only had minor tweaks since then.

So let's go through his points one at a time:

1. They haven't been neglecting an aging roster for a long time. As recently as last season they continued to bring in top talent in order to stay on top -- refer back to the predictions for the team when the Lakers acquired Howard & Nash. And at the time, the decision to bring in MDA to coach Nash could be defended, especially since the author himself says he's agnostic about Phil, who was the only other high-caliber choice. At least the Lakers were reuniting Nash with MDA, and there's a logic to having him coach a team led by Nash, Howard and Kobe.

The other point here is my central point -- the Lakers' overall game plan isn't to try to keep acquiring small pieces to maintain the roster. It's to play it out for all it's worth, then blow it up & start over quickly. It takes advantage of the fact that LA is a free agent destination, the Lakers are a team with resources, and LA fans don't necessarily have the patience to watch the team develop young core players. They have an overarching plan, they stuck to it, and as funny as it is to say, the current season is actually a part of the plan -- it's not evidence that they're doing anything wrong, and it's certainly not evidence for the author's first point.

2. Easy to say for companies in general, but a lot tougher when you're talking about family-owned businesses, where people are NECESSARILY going to be entrenched. This point to me is the weakest one of all -- he's encouraging turnover where it's not practical, and he's also assuming there's a pool of talent out there from which to draw. There really isn't.

3. What alternative is the author suggesting? My only alternative would be to swap Jim & Mitch in the hierarchy, so Jim reports to Mitch, Mitch reports to Jeanie, and Jeanie reports to the family trust (which includes Jim & Jeanie). That said, I think his criticisms of Jeanie are misfounded, and he doesn't recognize the importance of and weight carried by people in the position Jeanie occupies. To me it's a rather naive take, and the author was swayed by the more visible position that Jim occupies. And again, he's confusing correlation with causation -- he implied directly that the arrangement has resulted in the team's current poor position. It hasn't.

4. Okay, so Phil wasn't the solution, according to the author. And neither was MDA. So -- who was? Adelman? Like I said, you can at least defend the MDA choice (if it wasn't going to be Phil), even though it didn't work out with Nash & Howard. The rest of his point is just a whine demonstrating that he's as fickle as some of the fans he writes about. The Showtime era about which he waxes nostalgic also came to an end. The team had some down years before they rebuilt that roster, too. And that 1991 roster ALSO consisted of a top star who burned-out (basketball-wise) in Magic, a second-fiddle (Worthy) who also aged & reached the end of his career, a miscellaneous assortment of role players, and a mediocre coach. So what's so different between his nostalgia for the Showtime era and the roster of today? Not much, really.

The whole article is an exercise in misapplied angst.


Thanks Larry. Somehow I knew this would be ignored.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
divncom
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 1365
Location: Sydney via L.A.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:25 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
I am holding my breath for the Laker article in next month's Popular Mechanics.


That one will also show us being one of the worst run systems. Sorry. It's a fact of mechanical engineering at this point.
_________________
Chick Hearn was my favorite broadcaster ever - he's the one who taught me to think basketball, how to love basketball. - Bill Walton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
divncom
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 1365
Location: Sydney via L.A.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:29 pm    Post subject:

kray28_ wrote:
divncom wrote:
No amount of outside perspective will change the opinions of those who have dug their heels in that there's absolutely nothing wrong.

Article is spot on from a business perspective, although the cycle of corporate degeneration has been mentioned a number of times before by other people on this site.

Doc was "proven" already when he got into his position in the sense that he was a self made man. Then he proved himself beyond that by turning his franchise into the gold standard (although it's become fashionable here lately to hear people revising history and saying it was only minimally his doing).

His son has proven nothing in his entire life even with the tools he's got; the impetus is on him to change any perspectives of his product, not the other way around.


The funny thing about the Lakers is that from the business standpoint, they are doing fine, in fact they are making more money than ever. just like the Knicks. They are the new Knicks....their problem is on the basketball operations side which is separate from the business side. And the Lakers business side is buffered quite a bit from the negative consequences of poor basketball performance.


Trust me, if we stink for too long it will spill over into the business side. They're related somehow my intuition tells me.
Nobody wants to buy a Chris Kaman jersey and we can only rely on our "illustrious history" for so long before the laws of the human psyché dictate we're no longer important.
_________________
Chick Hearn was my favorite broadcaster ever - he's the one who taught me to think basketball, how to love basketball. - Bill Walton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:45 am    Post subject:

LAkers 4 Life wrote:
kray28_ wrote:
The primary issue is that Jim Buss is involved in any form of basketball operations. In Jeanie's case, being involved on the business side, she comes with the requisite business management credentials. But what credentials or any level of measurable merit does Jim bring with him?

So this point is a pretty important one and very accurate in terms of describing a certain cause of dysfunction within the organization.


Let's take a look at Jim Buss' career as per wikipedia:
1.) Small business with friend - Failed after friend dies
2.) LA Lazers soccer team - Failed after team folded
3.) Horse trainer - Failed after being unprofitable
4.) LA Lakers - Rudy T - fail, Mike Brown - fail, Mike D'Antoni - fail (and this is just coaching decisions)

I guess with that track record he's a natural for leading basketball operations... into the ground. After this debacle maybe he's humbled himself to run things his father did, by letting the basketball people do their jobs and just give insight on the major decisions.


But naturally, not all of them.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:49 am    Post subject:

divncom wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
I am holding my breath for the Laker article in next month's Popular Mechanics.


That one will also show us being one of the worst run systems. Sorry. It's a fact of mechanical engineering at this point.


I guess I should write an article about how the Laker FO is an overthrust fault zone and that El Segundo is becoming the epicenter of minor tremors, just waiting for the big one.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bandiger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 12555

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:02 pm    Post subject:

Voices wrote:
Reflexx wrote:
Voices wrote:
Reflexx wrote:
LAkers 4 Life wrote:
kray28_ wrote:
The primary issue is that Jim Buss is involved in any form of basketball operations. In Jeanie's case, being involved on the business side, she comes with the requisite business management credentials. But what credentials or any level of measurable merit does Jim bring with him?

So this point is a pretty important one and very accurate in terms of describing a certain cause of dysfunction within the organization.


Let's take a look at Jim Buss' career as per wikipedia:
1.) Small business with friend - Failed after friend dies
2.) LA Lazers soccer team - Failed after team folded
3.) Horse trainer - Failed after being unprofitable
4.) LA Lakers - Rudy T - fail, Mike Brown - fail, Mike D'Antoni - fail (and this is just coaching decisions)

I guess with that track record he's a natural for leading basketball operations... into the ground. After this debacle maybe he's humbled himself to run things his father did, by letting the basketball people do their jobs and just give insight on the major decisions.


He's here to stay.

You, as a "fan", are free to leave though. It's the most sincere way to protest that his ownership is unacceptable to you.


This current management team just set the record for worst record in Lakers history. Do you think this management team is doing a goof job? At what point and time would you want to replace this management team?


It doesn't really matter if I'd want to replace the management team. I could hate the management team. However, my constantly complaining about it over and over and over again doesn't change anything.

But I guess it helps that I don't hate the management team. I'm willing to give them a fair shake. No team stays #1 forever. The job of this team is to get us back in contention in a respectable amount of time.

And looking at NBA history, 15 yrs would be mighty respectable.

However, if I kept thinking that they were making bad decisions that would result in them sucking forever then I'd stop being a fan of the team.

I used to ask Clippers fans how they could be fans of a team that was owned by such a horrible person. They didn't seem to care. They agreed he was horrible, but they stayed fans anyway. Never made sense to me.


This management has been making decisions on it's own for about 2 years now, so if you think that is constantly complaining then so be it. During that time we fired MB, hired MDA over PJ, lost our own UFA Dwight Howard, and got exactly nothing for him, traded not 1 but 2 1st round picks for Nash who was an UFA. Not complaining about the money we paid Nash or the trade itself, it's about the TWO 1st round picks. And now there is some talk that we are looking to keep Gasol, please No.

We spent our 1st round draft picks like drunken sailors. This is they way I see it, we should of at least got 1 1st round pick for Dwight (after all 2 1rd. Picks for Nash) we should of used only 1 1st round pick for Nash and we should of traded Gasol and we should of received at least 1 1st Rd. picks for Gasol. If you add that up and I am being conservative we should have 5 1 Rd. picks between now and 2016.

Sure in a couple of the trades we might of had to of taken some bad contracts back but we would have the ability to rebuild with young players or trade the picks for pieces that fit. If you think that management has done a good job that's fine but I also have the right to complain hopeful without out bloggers complaining about my complaining

Not to mention the Kobe extension.


Actually it was 4 draft picks and 3-4 million to Suns for Nash.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
shibby
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 22 May 2009
Posts: 373

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:11 pm    Post subject:

I think they're a little early on this. "How the Lakers got lousy..." It's only one year right now, at least wait for 2 or 3 years of lottery appearances in a row to label the franchise lousy.

1 year is not enough imo, anything could happen next season. I wouldn't call the team being an 8th seed lousy though, definitely not good but not lousy. It's at least an improvement from this year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vkewalra
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 1722
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:34 am    Post subject: Re: Forbes: How The Lakers Got Lousy

kikanga wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robasghar/2014/04/10/how-the-lakers-got-lousy-cautionary-lessons-for-companies/

Lay off Forbes! I don't need you reminding me we suck when I'm trying to look at investments!


How about David Stern, Chris Paul Trade Veto? Pretty simple answer, nobody would be talking about the Lakers getting lousy if CP3, Kobe, and likely howard were wearing Purple and Gold.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4
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