|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave20 wrote: | That is what some of the anti tankers don't get, we don't need to have a top 2 worst record in the league to get a top 5 pick. I think we have a good chance as long as were one of the worst 7 teams in the league, which is possible.
All it takes is one ping pong ball to fall in our favor. Mudiay, Okafor, Stanley Johnson, and Townes are 4 elite prospects that are worth trying to keep that pick. Hopefully, Randle and Clarkson develop as rookies and were in position to get one of the top prospects. |
So you're saying we shouldn't tank then right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LakersARETheGOAT
Star Player
Joined: 13 Jan 2012
Posts: 3767
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lakers will be the 6th or 7th seed this season. There won't be tanking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave20
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Jun 2013
Posts: 11333
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | That is what some of the anti tankers don't get, we don't need to have a top 2 worst record in the league to get a top 5 pick. I think we have a good chance as long as were one of the worst 7 teams in the league, which is possible.
All it takes is one ping pong ball to fall in our favor. Mudiay, Okafor, Stanley Johnson, and Townes are 4 elite prospects that are worth trying to keep that pick. Hopefully, Randle and Clarkson develop as rookies and were in position to get one of the top prospects. |
So you're saying we shouldn't tank then right? |
I'm saying we should, it's the best option for this team going forward. Some Anti tankers don't like the idea of tanking because they think we need a guaranteed top 2 worst record to keep the top 5 protected pick, it isn't true at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LakersARETheGOAT wrote: | | Lakers will be the 6th or 7th seed this season. There won't be tanking. |
If they miss the playoffs does that mean they were tanking? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NomisR
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Feb 2012
Posts: 471
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave20 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | That is what some of the anti tankers don't get, we don't need to have a top 2 worst record in the league to get a top 5 pick. I think we have a good chance as long as were one of the worst 7 teams in the league, which is possible.
All it takes is one ping pong ball to fall in our favor. Mudiay, Okafor, Stanley Johnson, and Townes are 4 elite prospects that are worth trying to keep that pick. Hopefully, Randle and Clarkson develop as rookies and were in position to get one of the top prospects. |
So you're saying we shouldn't tank then right? |
I'm saying we should, it's the best option for this team going forward. Some Anti tankers don't like the idea of tanking because they think we need a guaranteed top 2 worst record to keep the top 5 protected pick, it isn't true at all. |
The problem with this is, if we get the 5th worse record and another Cleveland comes along with a 1st pick, then we simply just gave PHX our 6th pick. Of course, the chances of 2 or 3 top picks getting picked up is much smaller or you would at least want a 3rd or 4th worse record.
But we're almost better off gunning for the playoffs, if we make it, great, it'll prove everyone wrong. If we barely make it, it'll give Phoenix a worse pick, and if we win the lotto, we win. This is a better way to do it as there's less risks than simply tanking all the way.
AND, for tanking two years in a row, it'll hurt the brand significantly.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave20 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | That is what some of the anti tankers don't get, we don't need to have a top 2 worst record in the league to get a top 5 pick. I think we have a good chance as long as were one of the worst 7 teams in the league, which is possible.
All it takes is one ping pong ball to fall in our favor. Mudiay, Okafor, Stanley Johnson, and Townes are 4 elite prospects that are worth trying to keep that pick. Hopefully, Randle and Clarkson develop as rookies and were in position to get one of the top prospects. |
So you're saying we shouldn't tank then right? |
I'm saying we should, it's the best option for this team going forward. Some Anti tankers don't like the idea of tanking because they think we need a guaranteed top 2 worst record to keep the top 5 protected pick, it isn't true at all. |
I think we're going to miss the playoffs regardless of what we do. But if we are more likely going to lose the pick than get it, I'd personally rather not tank. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Team of the 80's
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 6095
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NomisR wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | That is what some of the anti tankers don't get, we don't need to have a top 2 worst record in the league to get a top 5 pick. I think we have a good chance as long as were one of the worst 7 teams in the league, which is possible.
All it takes is one ping pong ball to fall in our favor. Mudiay, Okafor, Stanley Johnson, and Townes are 4 elite prospects that are worth trying to keep that pick. Hopefully, Randle and Clarkson develop as rookies and were in position to get one of the top prospects. |
So you're saying we shouldn't tank then right? |
I'm saying we should, it's the best option for this team going forward. Some Anti tankers don't like the idea of tanking because they think we need a guaranteed top 2 worst record to keep the top 5 protected pick, it isn't true at all. |
The problem with this is, if we get the 5th worse record and another Cleveland comes along with a 1st pick, then we simply just gave PHX our 6th pick. Of course, the chances of 2 or 3 top picks getting picked up is much smaller or you would at least want a 3rd or 4th worse record.
But we're almost better off gunning for the playoffs, if we make it, great, it'll prove everyone wrong. If we barely make it, it'll give Phoenix a worse pick, and if we win the lotto, we win. This is a better way to do it as there's less risks than simply tanking all the way.
AND, for tanking two years in a row, it'll hurt the brand significantly.. |
That's what tankers don't seem to understand. If we tank one more year our brand will become even more of a joke to the morons at BSPN. One more year of Jim Buss is a moron, Kobe should retire, the Clippers are better and run LA, nobody wants to play for us, etc.
We need to turn the PR battle around so that FA's start thinking about the Laker brand as something they want to be apart of.
Fans need to start wearing their Laker gear even more now. We have nothing to be ashamed of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave20
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Jun 2013
Posts: 11333
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
^ I don't think we have a chance at making the playoffs, not with this roster or in the west. I'll take my chances having one of the top 7 worst records in the league and a chance at a top 5 pick then setting for 35-40 wins.
If I asked you guys would you rather have a top 7 pick and a chance at the top 5 protected pick or setting for 40 wins, most would take the top 7 pick. There's no positive at winning 35-40 games, getting a elite prospect is better for the franchise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Team of the 80's wrote: | | NomisR wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | That is what some of the anti tankers don't get, we don't need to have a top 2 worst record in the league to get a top 5 pick. I think we have a good chance as long as were one of the worst 7 teams in the league, which is possible.
All it takes is one ping pong ball to fall in our favor. Mudiay, Okafor, Stanley Johnson, and Townes are 4 elite prospects that are worth trying to keep that pick. Hopefully, Randle and Clarkson develop as rookies and were in position to get one of the top prospects. |
So you're saying we shouldn't tank then right? |
I'm saying we should, it's the best option for this team going forward. Some Anti tankers don't like the idea of tanking because they think we need a guaranteed top 2 worst record to keep the top 5 protected pick, it isn't true at all. |
The problem with this is, if we get the 5th worse record and another Cleveland comes along with a 1st pick, then we simply just gave PHX our 6th pick. Of course, the chances of 2 or 3 top picks getting picked up is much smaller or you would at least want a 3rd or 4th worse record.
But we're almost better off gunning for the playoffs, if we make it, great, it'll prove everyone wrong. If we barely make it, it'll give Phoenix a worse pick, and if we win the lotto, we win. This is a better way to do it as there's less risks than simply tanking all the way.
AND, for tanking two years in a row, it'll hurt the brand significantly.. |
That's what tankers don't seem to understand. If we tank one more year our brand will become even more of a joke to the morons at BSPN. One more year of Jim Buss is a moron, Kobe should retire, the Clippers are better and run LA, nobody wants to play for us, etc.
We need to turn the PR battle around so that FA's start thinking about the Laker brand as something they want to be apart of.
Fans need to start wearing their Laker gear even more now. We have nothing to be ashamed of. |
That's not true. There's plenty of equity in the Laker brand to withstand even multiple years of losing. A few seasons of success does not a brand make. And a few seasons of failure does not a brand break.
We just had one of the worst seasons in Laker history and turned a record level of profit ($100M).
Draft the next Lebron James and your brand will be just fine if not fantabulous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave20 wrote: | ^ I don't think we have a chance at making the playoffs, not with this roster or in the west. I'll take my chances having one of the top 7 worst records in the league and a chance at a top 5 pick then setting for 35-40 wins.
If I asked you guys would you rather have a top 7 pick and a chance at the top 5 protected pick or setting for 40 wins, most would take the top 7 pick. There's no positive at winning 35-40 games, getting a elite prospect is better for the franchise. |
Yeah but your argument was that all we need is ONE ping pong ball in our favor.
We can get that one ping pong ball without trying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NomisR
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Feb 2012
Posts: 471
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Team of the 80's wrote: | | NomisR wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | That is what some of the anti tankers don't get, we don't need to have a top 2 worst record in the league to get a top 5 pick. I think we have a good chance as long as were one of the worst 7 teams in the league, which is possible.
All it takes is one ping pong ball to fall in our favor. Mudiay, Okafor, Stanley Johnson, and Townes are 4 elite prospects that are worth trying to keep that pick. Hopefully, Randle and Clarkson develop as rookies and were in position to get one of the top prospects. |
So you're saying we shouldn't tank then right? |
I'm saying we should, it's the best option for this team going forward. Some Anti tankers don't like the idea of tanking because they think we need a guaranteed top 2 worst record to keep the top 5 protected pick, it isn't true at all. |
The problem with this is, if we get the 5th worse record and another Cleveland comes along with a 1st pick, then we simply just gave PHX our 6th pick. Of course, the chances of 2 or 3 top picks getting picked up is much smaller or you would at least want a 3rd or 4th worse record.
But we're almost better off gunning for the playoffs, if we make it, great, it'll prove everyone wrong. If we barely make it, it'll give Phoenix a worse pick, and if we win the lotto, we win. This is a better way to do it as there's less risks than simply tanking all the way.
AND, for tanking two years in a row, it'll hurt the brand significantly.. |
That's what tankers don't seem to understand. If we tank one more year our brand will become even more of a joke to the morons at BSPN. One more year of Jim Buss is a moron, Kobe should retire, the Clippers are better and run LA, nobody wants to play for us, etc.
We need to turn the PR battle around so that FA's start thinking about the Laker brand as something they want to be apart of.
Fans need to start wearing their Laker gear even more now. We have nothing to be ashamed of. |
That's not true. There's plenty of equity in the Laker brand to withstand even multiple years of losing. A few seasons of success does not a brand make. And a few seasons of failure does not a brand break.
We just had one of the worst seasons in Laker history and turned a record level of profit ($100M).
Draft the next Lebron James and your brand will be just fine if not fantabulous. |
People at BSPN are already talking about this being a "Clipper town", i mean, how did this conversation even come up. They've had 2 good years.. and it's suddenly a Clipper town? Really? We have more Championships than they have playoff berths, we've been to the finals more times than they games they have won in the playoffs, Clipper town?? RIGHT!
Even with another year of tanking, it won't hurt the brand much for Lakers fans, but it's not going to help it. And the problem is, when a lie is repeated enough, people take it as the truth. Look at the whole Jim Buss narrative that people on here are repeating. It's all a media creation. And who knows what else they'll make up just for the sake of it. None Lakers fans hates the Lakers.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iandrewd
Starting Rotation
Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Posts: 383
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Last year I was all for tanking. This year the NBA is discussing proposals that would eliminate the higher draft odds for worse teams thing (Sixers are adamantly opposed to this btw). If the NBA changes the NBA lottery rules then tanking doesn't accomplish anything. If the draft rules stay the same then the Lakers should tank (there is no realistic scenario in which this team makes the playoffs in the West).
As for those saying it hurts the "brand", the Clippers were the laughing stock of the NBA just a few years ago. Then they got a high draft pick (Griffin) and a great trade (Paul) and now people are concerned that the Clippers will be the better brand? You can't claim that the Lakers brand will be hurt by a couple losing seasons and in the same sentence say that the Clippers brand will improve dramatically with only a couple winning seasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NomisR
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Feb 2012
Posts: 471
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave20 wrote: | ^ I don't think we have a chance at making the playoffs, not with this roster or in the west. I'll take my chances having one of the top 7 worst records in the league and a chance at a top 5 pick then setting for 35-40 wins.
If I asked you guys would you rather have a top 7 pick and a chance at the top 5 protected pick or setting for 40 wins, most would take the top 7 pick. There's no positive at winning 35-40 games, getting a elite prospect is better for the franchise. |
The problem was, we were on track to be a 41 win team last year before Murphy came in and tore everything apart. And our starting lineup became Robert Sacre, Steve Blake, Ryan Kelly, Jordan Famar, Wes Johnson..
Based on the improvements we've made over the summer, can providing we can get the league statistical norm in injuries, AND having Kobe back, we have a chance of at least getting close to 50 wins. And last year is also a statistical anomaly in that a team getting 49 wins did not make the play offs, i think our chances of making the play offs is that much greater as a result.
And this looks better than another lottery year.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Team of the 80's
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 6095
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
BSPN is just trying to make money by stirring things up in LA. The Clippers don't even have 100,000 fans world wide. They don't draw ratings and everyone knows that. Tha's why the media has to create this false narrative that the Lakers are a joke and the Clippers are on the rise. If we tank one more year you will start to see bandwagon Laker fans jump ship to the Clipps because they need to be a part of a winner to feel better about themselves.
Hiring B Scott with the full support of the Showtime Legends was a genious move. It gives us swag around the league to see Kareem and Magic back in the fold.
The media is always asking when will the Lakers turn things around. Well I believe the come back has already started. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NomisR wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Team of the 80's wrote: | | NomisR wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | That is what some of the anti tankers don't get, we don't need to have a top 2 worst record in the league to get a top 5 pick. I think we have a good chance as long as were one of the worst 7 teams in the league, which is possible.
All it takes is one ping pong ball to fall in our favor. Mudiay, Okafor, Stanley Johnson, and Townes are 4 elite prospects that are worth trying to keep that pick. Hopefully, Randle and Clarkson develop as rookies and were in position to get one of the top prospects. |
So you're saying we shouldn't tank then right? |
I'm saying we should, it's the best option for this team going forward. Some Anti tankers don't like the idea of tanking because they think we need a guaranteed top 2 worst record to keep the top 5 protected pick, it isn't true at all. |
The problem with this is, if we get the 5th worse record and another Cleveland comes along with a 1st pick, then we simply just gave PHX our 6th pick. Of course, the chances of 2 or 3 top picks getting picked up is much smaller or you would at least want a 3rd or 4th worse record.
But we're almost better off gunning for the playoffs, if we make it, great, it'll prove everyone wrong. If we barely make it, it'll give Phoenix a worse pick, and if we win the lotto, we win. This is a better way to do it as there's less risks than simply tanking all the way.
AND, for tanking two years in a row, it'll hurt the brand significantly.. |
That's what tankers don't seem to understand. If we tank one more year our brand will become even more of a joke to the morons at BSPN. One more year of Jim Buss is a moron, Kobe should retire, the Clippers are better and run LA, nobody wants to play for us, etc.
We need to turn the PR battle around so that FA's start thinking about the Laker brand as something they want to be apart of.
Fans need to start wearing their Laker gear even more now. We have nothing to be ashamed of. |
That's not true. There's plenty of equity in the Laker brand to withstand even multiple years of losing. A few seasons of success does not a brand make. And a few seasons of failure does not a brand break.
We just had one of the worst seasons in Laker history and turned a record level of profit ($100M).
Draft the next Lebron James and your brand will be just fine if not fantabulous. |
People at BSPN are already talking about this being a "Clipper town", i mean, how did this conversation even come up. They've had 2 good years.. and it's suddenly a Clipper town? Really? We have more Championships than they have playoff berths, we've been to the finals more times than they games they have won in the playoffs, Clipper town?? RIGHT!
Even with another year of tanking, it won't hurt the brand much for Lakers fans, but it's not going to help it. And the problem is, when a lie is repeated enough, people take it as the truth. Look at the whole Jim Buss narrative that people on here are repeating. It's all a media creation. And who knows what else they'll make up just for the sake of it. None Lakers fans hates the Lakers.. |
What people on ESPN are saying about this being a Clipper town has had no significant adverse effect on the Laker brand value.
Whether you tank or not, what significantly hurts your brand value is losing consistently over time. How you lost is irrelevant really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave20
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Jun 2013
Posts: 11333
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | ^ I don't think we have a chance at making the playoffs, not with this roster or in the west. I'll take my chances having one of the top 7 worst records in the league and a chance at a top 5 pick then setting for 35-40 wins.
If I asked you guys would you rather have a top 7 pick and a chance at the top 5 protected pick or setting for 40 wins, most would take the top 7 pick. There's no positive at winning 35-40 games, getting a elite prospect is better for the franchise. |
Yeah but your argument was that all we need is ONE ping pong ball in our favor.
We can get that one ping pong ball without trying. |
It's not hard to try with this roster, it's made up of a star past his prime and cast offs. If there was a definition of team tank in the dictionary and pictures, you would see the faces of Byron, Boozer, and Swaggy P. It's a bad roster, I don't think this team wins more then 25 games. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Team of the 80's
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 6095
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NomisR wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | ^ I don't think we have a chance at making the playoffs, not with this roster or in the west. I'll take my chances having one of the top 7 worst records in the league and a chance at a top 5 pick then setting for 35-40 wins.
If I asked you guys would you rather have a top 7 pick and a chance at the top 5 protected pick or setting for 40 wins, most would take the top 7 pick. There's no positive at winning 35-40 games, getting a elite prospect is better for the franchise. |
The problem was, we were on track to be a 41 win team last year before Murphy came in and tore everything apart. And our starting lineup became Robert Sacre, Steve Blake, Ryan Kelly, Jordan Famar, Wes Johnson..
Based on the improvements we've made over the summer, can providing we can get the league statistical norm in injuries, AND having Kobe back, we have a chance of at least getting close to 50 wins. And last year is also a statistical anomaly in that a team getting 49 wins did not make the play offs, i think our chances of making the play offs is that much greater as a result.
And this looks better than another lottery year.. |
I agree and have been saying the same thing to the tankers and doomsdayers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave20 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | ^ I don't think we have a chance at making the playoffs, not with this roster or in the west. I'll take my chances having one of the top 7 worst records in the league and a chance at a top 5 pick then setting for 35-40 wins.
If I asked you guys would you rather have a top 7 pick and a chance at the top 5 protected pick or setting for 40 wins, most would take the top 7 pick. There's no positive at winning 35-40 games, getting a elite prospect is better for the franchise. |
Yeah but your argument was that all we need is ONE ping pong ball in our favor.
We can get that one ping pong ball without trying. |
It's not hard to try with this roster, it's made up of a star past his prime and cast offs. If there was a definition of team tank in the dictionary and pictures, you would see the faces of Byron, Boozer, and Swaggy P. It's a bad roster, I don't think this team wins more then 25 games. |
Totally agree it's an awful roster. But net-net it's not substantially worse than what we had last year. And last year we won 27 games. With lots of injuries. And horrific coaching. Scott is no savior, but, he's better than MDA. And I can't presume we'll have the unprecedented number of injuries we had last year.
I've got the team penciled in for about 35-38 wins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Team of the 80's
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 6095
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | NomisR wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Team of the 80's wrote: | | NomisR wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | That is what some of the anti tankers don't get, we don't need to have a top 2 worst record in the league to get a top 5 pick. I think we have a good chance as long as were one of the worst 7 teams in the league, which is possible.
All it takes is one ping pong ball to fall in our favor. Mudiay, Okafor, Stanley Johnson, and Townes are 4 elite prospects that are worth trying to keep that pick. Hopefully, Randle and Clarkson develop as rookies and were in position to get one of the top prospects. |
So you're saying we shouldn't tank then right? |
I'm saying we should, it's the best option for this team going forward. Some Anti tankers don't like the idea of tanking because they think we need a guaranteed top 2 worst record to keep the top 5 protected pick, it isn't true at all. |
The problem with this is, if we get the 5th worse record and another Cleveland comes along with a 1st pick, then we simply just gave PHX our 6th pick. Of course, the chances of 2 or 3 top picks getting picked up is much smaller or you would at least want a 3rd or 4th worse record.
But we're almost better off gunning for the playoffs, if we make it, great, it'll prove everyone wrong. If we barely make it, it'll give Phoenix a worse pick, and if we win the lotto, we win. This is a better way to do it as there's less risks than simply tanking all the way.
AND, for tanking two years in a row, it'll hurt the brand significantly.. |
That's what tankers don't seem to understand. If we tank one more year our brand will become even more of a joke to the morons at BSPN. One more year of Jim Buss is a moron, Kobe should retire, the Clippers are better and run LA, nobody wants to play for us, etc.
We need to turn the PR battle around so that FA's start thinking about the Laker brand as something they want to be apart of.
Fans need to start wearing their Laker gear even more now. We have nothing to be ashamed of. |
That's not true. There's plenty of equity in the Laker brand to withstand even multiple years of losing. A few seasons of success does not a brand make. And a few seasons of failure does not a brand break.
We just had one of the worst seasons in Laker history and turned a record level of profit ($100M).
Draft the next Lebron James and your brand will be just fine if not fantabulous. |
People at BSPN are already talking about this being a "Clipper town", i mean, how did this conversation even come up. They've had 2 good years.. and it's suddenly a Clipper town? Really? We have more Championships than they have playoff berths, we've been to the finals more times than they games they have won in the playoffs, Clipper town?? RIGHT!
Even with another year of tanking, it won't hurt the brand much for Lakers fans, but it's not going to help it. And the problem is, when a lie is repeated enough, people take it as the truth. Look at the whole Jim Buss narrative that people on here are repeating. It's all a media creation. And who knows what else they'll make up just for the sake of it. None Lakers fans hates the Lakers.. |
What people on ESPN are saying about this being a Clipper town has had no significant adverse effect on the Laker brand value.
Whether you tank or not, what significantly hurts your brand value is losing consistently over time. How you lost is irrelevant really. |
Losing is one thing but losing and being in the lotto two year in a row is a disaster for a team like the Lakers.
And yes, what BSPN says is having a effect on the Laker brand. If bad mouth the Lakers in the press every single day (and they have) it will surely hurt the brand going forward. BSPN tries to create the story rather than report it. They want to replace the Lakers with the Clippers because they know that if the Lakers aren't on TV or in the news ratings will be lower. The Clippers don't have any fans! And most of them are casual fans who will abandon them like the Titanic is they start losing again. They need the LA market badly since they built that studio at LA live.
The only way to replace the Clippers with the Lakers is to keep bad mouthing everything the Lakers do and it becomes a self fullfilling story line.
I want all of you to watch for something when the Lakers do well this year and make the playoffs. Watch how BSPN covers the Laker resurgence. They will try to ignore it at first or dismiss it. Then when its apparent that we're back they'll start hyping us again like they were behind us from the beginning. That's the BSPN formula. Build it up, tear it down. Rinse and repeat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave20
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Jun 2013
Posts: 11333
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^ Scott being better then Dantoni is an opinion but not a fact. Dantoni has his flaws but he was one of the top 5 offensive coaches in the league. The offensive system made it easier for guys to score who normally wouldn't in a different offense. Scott hasn't been good defensively or offensively and needs the best PG in the league to make it work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Team of the 80's wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | NomisR wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Team of the 80's wrote: | | NomisR wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | That is what some of the anti tankers don't get, we don't need to have a top 2 worst record in the league to get a top 5 pick. I think we have a good chance as long as were one of the worst 7 teams in the league, which is possible.
All it takes is one ping pong ball to fall in our favor. Mudiay, Okafor, Stanley Johnson, and Townes are 4 elite prospects that are worth trying to keep that pick. Hopefully, Randle and Clarkson develop as rookies and were in position to get one of the top prospects. |
So you're saying we shouldn't tank then right? |
I'm saying we should, it's the best option for this team going forward. Some Anti tankers don't like the idea of tanking because they think we need a guaranteed top 2 worst record to keep the top 5 protected pick, it isn't true at all. |
The problem with this is, if we get the 5th worse record and another Cleveland comes along with a 1st pick, then we simply just gave PHX our 6th pick. Of course, the chances of 2 or 3 top picks getting picked up is much smaller or you would at least want a 3rd or 4th worse record.
But we're almost better off gunning for the playoffs, if we make it, great, it'll prove everyone wrong. If we barely make it, it'll give Phoenix a worse pick, and if we win the lotto, we win. This is a better way to do it as there's less risks than simply tanking all the way.
AND, for tanking two years in a row, it'll hurt the brand significantly.. |
That's what tankers don't seem to understand. If we tank one more year our brand will become even more of a joke to the morons at BSPN. One more year of Jim Buss is a moron, Kobe should retire, the Clippers are better and run LA, nobody wants to play for us, etc.
We need to turn the PR battle around so that FA's start thinking about the Laker brand as something they want to be apart of.
Fans need to start wearing their Laker gear even more now. We have nothing to be ashamed of. |
That's not true. There's plenty of equity in the Laker brand to withstand even multiple years of losing. A few seasons of success does not a brand make. And a few seasons of failure does not a brand break.
We just had one of the worst seasons in Laker history and turned a record level of profit ($100M).
Draft the next Lebron James and your brand will be just fine if not fantabulous. |
People at BSPN are already talking about this being a "Clipper town", i mean, how did this conversation even come up. They've had 2 good years.. and it's suddenly a Clipper town? Really? We have more Championships than they have playoff berths, we've been to the finals more times than they games they have won in the playoffs, Clipper town?? RIGHT!
Even with another year of tanking, it won't hurt the brand much for Lakers fans, but it's not going to help it. And the problem is, when a lie is repeated enough, people take it as the truth. Look at the whole Jim Buss narrative that people on here are repeating. It's all a media creation. And who knows what else they'll make up just for the sake of it. None Lakers fans hates the Lakers.. |
What people on ESPN are saying about this being a Clipper town has had no significant adverse effect on the Laker brand value.
Whether you tank or not, what significantly hurts your brand value is losing consistently over time. How you lost is irrelevant really. |
Losing is one thing but losing and being in the lotto two year in a row is a disaster for a team like the Lakers.
And yes, what BSPN says is having a effect on the Laker brand. If bad mouth the Lakers in the press every single day (and they have) it will surely hurt the brand going forward. BSPN tries to create the story rather than report it. They want to replace the Lakers with the Clippers because they know that if the Lakers aren't on TV or in the news ratings will be lower. The Clippers don't have any fans! And most of them are casual fans who will abandon them like the Titanic is they start losing again. They need the LA market badly since they built that studio at LA live.
The only way to replace the Clippers with the Lakers is to keep bad mouthing everything the Lakers do and it becomes a self fullfilling story line.
I want all of you to watch for something when the Lakers do well this year and make the playoffs. Watch how BSPN covers the Laker resurgence. They will try to ignore it at first or dismiss it. Then when its apparent that we're back they'll start hyping us again like they were behind us from the beginning. That's the BSPN formula. Build it up, tear it down. Rinse and repeat. |
We had a first round exit by virtue of a sweep followed by a 27 win season and we netted $100M in profit, a franchise record. The brand is fine.
What was the brand value prior to last season and by how much did that value decline after our poor season? Nothing has changed.
The idea that having multiple losing seasons will significantly impact brand value in a negative way is pure speculation without any basis in fact. It sounds good but so does the idea of Santa Claus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave20 wrote: | | ^ Scott being better then Dantoni is an opinion but not a fact. Dantoni has his flaws but he was one of the top 5 offensive coaches in the league. The offensive system made it easier for guys to score who normally wouldn't in a different offense. Scott hasn't been good defensively or offensively and needs the best PG in the league to make it work. |
Sure. When I'm projecting out, I have to make my projections based on reasonable assumptions.
It's hard for me to assume that Byron Scott will be worse than MDA, but I can't safely assume he'll be significantly better. So I'm going with SLIGHTLY better than MDA.
I'm also going to assume we won't have as many injuries as we did last year to the point where we had guys with legal names like L'Adorable playing for us.
My projection also assumes that overall talent level of the two teams is net even. (Loss of Gasol, Blake, Meeks = Addition of Kobe, Lin, Randle).
That's how I get to my 10-12 net wins projection over last season. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NomisR
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Feb 2012
Posts: 471
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave20 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | ^ I don't think we have a chance at making the playoffs, not with this roster or in the west. I'll take my chances having one of the top 7 worst records in the league and a chance at a top 5 pick then setting for 35-40 wins.
If I asked you guys would you rather have a top 7 pick and a chance at the top 5 protected pick or setting for 40 wins, most would take the top 7 pick. There's no positive at winning 35-40 games, getting a elite prospect is better for the franchise. |
Yeah but your argument was that all we need is ONE ping pong ball in our favor.
We can get that one ping pong ball without trying. |
It's not hard to try with this roster, it's made up of a star past his prime and cast offs. If there was a definition of team tank in the dictionary and pictures, you would see the faces of Byron, Boozer, and Swaggy P. It's a bad roster, I don't think this team wins more then 25 games. |
Like I said before, the only reason why last season's record was so bad was because of the injuries. No matter who the coach is or what stars you have, if half of your lineup is injured and pretty much your entire starting lineup. it's going to hurt you.
Last year's team, pre Kobe was a borderline .500 team. It wasn't inconceivable when he came that for him to give us a huge boost once he's settled in. The fact that he got hurt after 6 game pretty much killed all morale for the team. It's just the team lost all hope of making the playoffs..
I don't know why people don't get it... it's like everyone's only looking at the stats and judging the team by that without looking at context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Game James
Star Player
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 4004
Location: The official trout slapper of LG.net
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DK wrote: | It's really unlikely this is going to work out the way you guys want. First of all, as another poster noted, we were awful last year and still landed in the 7th slot. To get Top 5 to clear the PHX protection would be extremely difficult.
Second, as bad as it was last year, the team was basically hammered by injuries. The first third of the season we were actually over .500.
A line-up of Lin/Kobe/Young/Randle/Hill + Marshall/Clarkson/Kelly/Sacre/X?/Bazemore? would not fool anyone into being a contender, but definitely not be as awful as a lot are thinking. It would be a .500 team probably, if Kobe is healthy and Randle is as NBA-ready as advertised. |
This thread should have been locked after this post. I was the captain of team tank last year. As soon as we lost Dwight, prior to the start of the season, I wanted to tank. It just made a lot of sense. And if the team had done what I wanted (traded Pau), we could easily have competed to be in the top 3 for the worst records last season.
However, with the way this team is designed, and with a healthy Kobe, and with a draft pick that is only ours if we are one of the 5 worst teams in the league, and with a more competent coach, I just don't see us being as bad as last year. I can see us getting 10-15 more wins than last season. Maybe not playoff worthy, but definitely not top 5 lottery bound.
_________________
Don't make me give you a trout slap!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NomisR
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Feb 2012
Posts: 471
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Dave20 wrote: | ^ I don't think we have a chance at making the playoffs, not with this roster or in the west. I'll take my chances having one of the top 7 worst records in the league and a chance at a top 5 pick then setting for 35-40 wins.
If I asked you guys would you rather have a top 7 pick and a chance at the top 5 protected pick or setting for 40 wins, most would take the top 7 pick. There's no positive at winning 35-40 games, getting a elite prospect is better for the franchise. |
Yeah but your argument was that all we need is ONE ping pong ball in our favor.
We can get that one ping pong ball without trying. |
It's not hard to try with this roster, it's made up of a star past his prime and cast offs. If there was a definition of team tank in the dictionary and pictures, you would see the faces of Byron, Boozer, and Swaggy P. It's a bad roster, I don't think this team wins more then 25 games. |
Totally agree it's an awful roster. But net-net it's not substantially worse than what we had last year. And last year we won 27 games. With lots of injuries. And horrific coaching. Scott is no savior, but, he's better than MDA. And I can't presume we'll have the unprecedented number of injuries we had last year.
I've got the team penciled in for about 35-38 wins. |
Awful Roster?
Lin > whoever's not injured playing the PG
Kobe > whoever's not injured playing the SG
Wes = Wes
Randle/Boozer > Ryan Kelly or Jordan Hill when he's not hurt (offensively)
Hill < Pau
So basically, the only drop off in position was Center position.
And compared to Dwight year
Lin > whoever's not hurt playing PG
Kobe < Kobe
Wes = MWP
Randle/Boozer = Pau (statistically, they were about the same that year)
Hill < Dwight
So even compared to that year, it's not a huge drop off. But when you consider that during 2012, we had no real PG at the time, so basically, the only person that could create a shot was Kobe and Kobe and Kobe.. There was little ball movement and our offense was stagnant.
This year, we have Kobe, Nick Young, Jeremy Lin, (Steve Nash's corpse), Julius Randle, Xavier Henry, Jordan Clarkson. Which is a lot better option offensively than 2012, where we had Chris Duhon as the PG at one point.. |
|
| 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
|
|
