LA Times: Jeanie Buss thwarts initial efforts from brothers to take over the Lakers
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 43, 44, 45, 46, 47  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24185

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:33 pm    Post subject:

Daphanabe wrote:
Forget the fact that good teams like San Antonio haven't had to rebuild because of good FO management.



What are these "good teams" like San Antonio that haven't had to rebuild?

Seems like San Antonio is unique.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Daphanabe
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 862

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:37 pm    Post subject:

Daphanabe wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
msb212 wrote:
The people who are bitching and moaning about Jeanie in this thread are oblivious to the fact that the only part of the team which has functioned properly since the death of Dr Buss is the business side - jeanie's purview. They signed the most lucrative tv deal in NBA history. Despite their record, ticket prices remain at the top of the league. Sponsorships continue to rake in big bucks. And, Jeanie was smart enough to know that she needed a basketball expert she could trust - enter Magic.

Nows look at the basketball side - a complete failure in every respect. Worst record in laker history.

And you all are complaining who won? please.


It's ludicrous to compare the business side to the basketball side. The basketball side of the NBA deliberately punishes successful teams (causing the need for rebuilds), while the business side is a free market for the most part. The business side in LA plays with a stacked deck.


Amazing
- When it's Jeanine's success: "Stacked deck!" (can't possibly be her)
- When it's Jim failure: "It's not him" (big bad NBA making Jim act the idiotic way he did)

Forget the fact that good teams like San Antonio haven't had to rebuild because of good FO management.


Your words, not mine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TransientTexan
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 04 Jul 2015
Posts: 101

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:38 pm    Post subject:

Daphanabe wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
msb212 wrote:
The people who are bitching and moaning about Jeanie in this thread are oblivious to the fact that the only part of the team which has functioned properly since the death of Dr Buss is the business side - jeanie's purview. They signed the most lucrative tv deal in NBA history. Despite their record, ticket prices remain at the top of the league. Sponsorships continue to rake in big bucks. And, Jeanie was smart enough to know that she needed a basketball expert she could trust - enter Magic.

Nows look at the basketball side - a complete failure in every respect. Worst record in laker history.

And you all are complaining who won? please.


It's ludicrous to compare the business side to the basketball side. The basketball side of the NBA deliberately punishes successful teams (causing the need for rebuilds), while the business side is a free market for the most part. The business side in LA plays with a stacked deck.


Amazing
- When it's Jeanine's success: "Stacked deck!" (can't possibly be her)
- When it's Jim failure: "It's not him" (big bad NBA making Jim act the idiotic way he did)

Forget the fact that good teams like San Antonio haven't had to rebuild because of good FO management.


Your words, not mine


which you have still failed to make a coherent point about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Daphanabe
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 862

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:49 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
Forget the fact that good teams like San Antonio haven't had to rebuild because of good FO management.



What are these "good teams" like San Antonio that haven't had to rebuild?

Seems like San Antonio is unique.


Just focusing on championship comparables:

Celtics (pains me to say this). We were in the finals in the same year. They've missed the playoffs only once and are well positioned for the future.

Miami. LeBron leaves, bad luck with Bosh, yet they only missed playoffs once (and are surprisingly frisky this year).

Dallas. Won in 2011, missed playoffs only once since then (and are surprisingly frisky this year)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Daphanabe
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 862

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:54 pm    Post subject:

TransientTexan wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
msb212 wrote:
The people who are bitching and moaning about Jeanie in this thread are oblivious to the fact that the only part of the team which has functioned properly since the death of Dr Buss is the business side - jeanie's purview. They signed the most lucrative tv deal in NBA history. Despite their record, ticket prices remain at the top of the league. Sponsorships continue to rake in big bucks. And, Jeanie was smart enough to know that she needed a basketball expert she could trust - enter Magic.

Nows look at the basketball side - a complete failure in every respect. Worst record in laker history.

And you all are complaining who won? please.


It's ludicrous to compare the business side to the basketball side. The basketball side of the NBA deliberately punishes successful teams (causing the need for rebuilds), while the business side is a free market for the most part. The business side in LA plays with a stacked deck.


Amazing
- When it's Jeanine's success: "Stacked deck!" (can't possibly be her)
- When it's Jim failure: "It's not him" (big bad NBA making Jim act the idiotic way he did)

Forget the fact that good teams like San Antonio haven't had to rebuild because of good FO management.


Your words, not mine


which you have still failed to make a coherent point about.


Let me try to simplify this: Your original post basically says that Jeanie's success is attributable to a stacked deck, while Jim's failure was attributable to the NBA 'punishing successful teams'. Are you denying this is what you said?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TransientTexan
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 04 Jul 2015
Posts: 101

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:00 pm    Post subject:

Daphanabe wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
msb212 wrote:
The people who are bitching and moaning about Jeanie in this thread are oblivious to the fact that the only part of the team which has functioned properly since the death of Dr Buss is the business side - jeanie's purview. They signed the most lucrative tv deal in NBA history. Despite their record, ticket prices remain at the top of the league. Sponsorships continue to rake in big bucks. And, Jeanie was smart enough to know that she needed a basketball expert she could trust - enter Magic.

Nows look at the basketball side - a complete failure in every respect. Worst record in laker history.

And you all are complaining who won? please.


It's ludicrous to compare the business side to the basketball side. The basketball side of the NBA deliberately punishes successful teams (causing the need for rebuilds), while the business side is a free market for the most part. The business side in LA plays with a stacked deck.


Amazing
- When it's Jeanine's success: "Stacked deck!" (can't possibly be her)
- When it's Jim failure: "It's not him" (big bad NBA making Jim act the idiotic way he did)

Forget the fact that good teams like San Antonio haven't had to rebuild because of good FO management.


Your words, not mine


which you have still failed to make a coherent point about.


Let me try to simplify this: Your original post basically says that Jeanie's success is attributable to a stacked deck, while Jim's failure was attributable to the NBA 'punishing successful teams'. Are you denying this is what you said?


still waiting for a point to be made...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Daphanabe
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 862

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:07 pm    Post subject:

TransientTexan wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
msb212 wrote:
The people who are bitching and moaning about Jeanie in this thread are oblivious to the fact that the only part of the team which has functioned properly since the death of Dr Buss is the business side - jeanie's purview. They signed the most lucrative tv deal in NBA history. Despite their record, ticket prices remain at the top of the league. Sponsorships continue to rake in big bucks. And, Jeanie was smart enough to know that she needed a basketball expert she could trust - enter Magic.

Nows look at the basketball side - a complete failure in every respect. Worst record in laker history.

And you all are complaining who won? please.


It's ludicrous to compare the business side to the basketball side. The basketball side of the NBA deliberately punishes successful teams (causing the need for rebuilds), while the business side is a free market for the most part. The business side in LA plays with a stacked deck.


Amazing
- When it's Jeanine's success: "Stacked deck!" (can't possibly be her)
- When it's Jim failure: "It's not him" (big bad NBA making Jim act the idiotic way he did)

Forget the fact that good teams like San Antonio haven't had to rebuild because of good FO management.


Your words, not mine


which you have still failed to make a coherent point about.


Let me try to simplify this: Your original post basically says that Jeanie's success is attributable to a stacked deck, while Jim's failure was attributable to the NBA 'punishing successful teams'. Are you denying this is what you said?


still waiting for a point to be made...


Got it -- you have no way to explain your original post, so you've resulted to stall tactics, and basically refuse to engage in a discussion.

Okay then.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24185

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:10 pm    Post subject:

Daphanabe wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
Forget the fact that good teams like San Antonio haven't had to rebuild because of good FO management.



What are these "good teams" like San Antonio that haven't had to rebuild?

Seems like San Antonio is unique.


Just focusing on championship comparables:

Celtics (pains me to say this). We were in the finals in the same year. They've missed the playoffs only once and are well positioned for the future.

Miami. LeBron leaves, bad luck with Bosh, yet they only missed playoffs once (and are surprisingly frisky this year).

Dallas. Won in 2011, missed playoffs only once since then (and are surprisingly frisky this year)





Miami is 31-34.
Dallas is 27-36.

This is your idea of "surprisingly frisky" teams that have never rebuilt and have no need to rebuild? You honestly think they are comparable to San Antonio two straight decades of success?

I don't even know where to begin ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TransientTexan
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 04 Jul 2015
Posts: 101

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:13 pm    Post subject:

Daphanabe wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
msb212 wrote:
The people who are bitching and moaning about Jeanie in this thread are oblivious to the fact that the only part of the team which has functioned properly since the death of Dr Buss is the business side - jeanie's purview. They signed the most lucrative tv deal in NBA history. Despite their record, ticket prices remain at the top of the league. Sponsorships continue to rake in big bucks. And, Jeanie was smart enough to know that she needed a basketball expert she could trust - enter Magic.

Nows look at the basketball side - a complete failure in every respect. Worst record in laker history.

And you all are complaining who won? please.


It's ludicrous to compare the business side to the basketball side. The basketball side of the NBA deliberately punishes successful teams (causing the need for rebuilds), while the business side is a free market for the most part. The business side in LA plays with a stacked deck.


Amazing
- When it's Jeanine's success: "Stacked deck!" (can't possibly be her)
- When it's Jim failure: "It's not him" (big bad NBA making Jim act the idiotic way he did)

Forget the fact that good teams like San Antonio haven't had to rebuild because of good FO management.


Your words, not mine


which you have still failed to make a coherent point about.


Let me try to simplify this: Your original post basically says that Jeanie's success is attributable to a stacked deck, while Jim's failure was attributable to the NBA 'punishing successful teams'. Are you denying this is what you said?


still waiting for a point to be made...


Got it -- you have no way to explain your original post, so you've resulted to stall tactics, and basically refuse to engage in a discussion.

Okay then.


you're projecting. come back when you figure out a way to articulate your point
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Daphanabe
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 862

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:21 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
Forget the fact that good teams like San Antonio haven't had to rebuild because of good FO management.



What are these "good teams" like San Antonio that haven't had to rebuild?

Seems like San Antonio is unique.


Just focusing on championship comparables:

Celtics (pains me to say this). We were in the finals in the same year. They've missed the playoffs only once and are well positioned for the future.

Miami. LeBron leaves, bad luck with Bosh, yet they only missed playoffs once (and are surprisingly frisky this year).

Dallas. Won in 2011, missed playoffs only once since then (and are surprisingly frisky this year)





Miami is 31-34.
Dallas is 27-36.

This is your idea of "surprisingly frisky" teams that have never rebuilt and have no need to rebuild? You honestly think they are comparable to San Antonio two straight decades of success?

I don't even know where to begin ...


Just highlighting that if you take anyone who has won a championship (making that a potential definition for 'successful team' that is the crux of the original point I was debating) since 2000, we are the only team that has had to endure this length of 'crapness', of which the old regime played a big part in enabling.

The original point was that supposedly successful teams were punished by the NBA (brought up by another poster to ostensibly defend Jim Buss). I highlighted that good FOs can navigate that and gave SA as an example. It was highlighted that that is an exception -- at which point I highlighted other comparables (you ignored Celtics by the way). As to Dallas and Miami -- they are both a game or 2 away from the 8th playoff spots. And that is directly attributable to good FO moves (e.g. good FA pickups, not handing out stupid contracts, etc.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Daphanabe
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 862

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:23 pm    Post subject:

TransientTexan wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
msb212 wrote:
The people who are bitching and moaning about Jeanie in this thread are oblivious to the fact that the only part of the team which has functioned properly since the death of Dr Buss is the business side - jeanie's purview. They signed the most lucrative tv deal in NBA history. Despite their record, ticket prices remain at the top of the league. Sponsorships continue to rake in big bucks. And, Jeanie was smart enough to know that she needed a basketball expert she could trust - enter Magic.

Nows look at the basketball side - a complete failure in every respect. Worst record in laker history.

And you all are complaining who won? please.


It's ludicrous to compare the business side to the basketball side. The basketball side of the NBA deliberately punishes successful teams (causing the need for rebuilds), while the business side is a free market for the most part. The business side in LA plays with a stacked deck.


Amazing
- When it's Jeanine's success: "Stacked deck!" (can't possibly be her)
- When it's Jim failure: "It's not him" (big bad NBA making Jim act the idiotic way he did)

Forget the fact that good teams like San Antonio haven't had to rebuild because of good FO management.


Your words, not mine


which you have still failed to make a coherent point about.


Let me try to simplify this: Your original post basically says that Jeanie's success is attributable to a stacked deck, while Jim's failure was attributable to the NBA 'punishing successful teams'. Are you denying this is what you said?


still waiting for a point to be made...


Got it -- you have no way to explain your original post, so you've resulted to stall tactics, and basically refuse to engage in a discussion.

Okay then.


you're projecting. come back when you figure out a way to articulate your point


Keep on stalling and avoiding your original post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TransientTexan
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 04 Jul 2015
Posts: 101

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:29 pm    Post subject:

apparently some simpletons need the obvious to be stated. when you are in a market that dwarfs the competition, of course it will be easier to turn a profit and ticket sales will be higher. There are 22 million freaking people in the SoCal area. That's like 6 times larger than the median metro area for NBA teams.

meanwhile, on the basketball side, there is a playing field that is not only leveled with a salary cap, but includes deliberate punishment of success via the draft lottery process and seeding by inverse order of the standings. this creates peaks and valleys for team on-court success over the long run. there is no mechanism on the business side that is even close to that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TransientTexan
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 04 Jul 2015
Posts: 101

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:36 pm    Post subject:

Daphanabe wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
Forget the fact that good teams like San Antonio haven't had to rebuild because of good FO management.



What are these "good teams" like San Antonio that haven't had to rebuild?

Seems like San Antonio is unique.


Just focusing on championship comparables:

Celtics (pains me to say this). We were in the finals in the same year. They've missed the playoffs only once and are well positioned for the future.

Miami. LeBron leaves, bad luck with Bosh, yet they only missed playoffs once (and are surprisingly frisky this year).

Dallas. Won in 2011, missed playoffs only once since then (and are surprisingly frisky this year)





Miami is 31-34.
Dallas is 27-36.

This is your idea of "surprisingly frisky" teams that have never rebuilt and have no need to rebuild? You honestly think they are comparable to San Antonio two straight decades of success?

I don't even know where to begin ...


Just highlighting that if you take anyone who has won a championship (making that a potential definition for 'successful team' that is the crux of the original point I was debating) since 2000, we are the only team that has had to endure this length of 'crapness', of which the old regime played a big part in enabling.

The original point was that supposedly successful teams were punished by the NBA (brought up by another poster to ostensibly defend Jim Buss). I highlighted that good FOs can navigate that and gave SA as an example. It was highlighted that that is an exception -- at which point I highlighted other comparables (you ignored Celtics by the way). As to Dallas and Miami -- they are both a game or 2 away from the 8th playoff spots. And that is directly attributable to good FO moves (e.g. good FA pickups, not handing out stupid contracts, etc.)


just because a small handful of teams can mitigate some of the harmful affects of the balance does not invalidate the general trend. google 'anecdotal evidence' and you will discover why that is a bad way to try to prove a point. try to understand the distinction between possibility and probability.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Daphanabe
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 862

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:36 pm    Post subject:

TransientTexan wrote:
apparently some simpletons need the obvious to be stated. when you are in a market that dwarfs the competition, of course it will be easier to turn a profit and ticket sales will be higher. There are 22 million freaking people in the SoCal area. That's like 6 times larger than the median metro area for NBA teams.

meanwhile, on the basketball side, there is a playing field that is not only leveled with a salary cap, but includes deliberate punishment of success via the draft lottery process and seeding by inverse order of the standings. this creates peaks and valleys for team on-court success over the long run. there is no mechanism on the business side that is even close to that.


Answer me this then: Did the NBA force Jim to hand out contract abominations to Mozgov and Deng? Did the lottery mechanism constrain Jim to only have a Superstar or bust FA strategy that dug them into a hole year on year? etc.

My point -- a crappy front office is a crappy front office. You can't excuse bad performance by pointing to an externality. This is particularly true when comparable contexts (e.g. SA, Boston, etc. in previous posts) were able to positively navigate same said environment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TransientTexan
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 04 Jul 2015
Posts: 101

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:41 pm    Post subject:

Daphanabe wrote:


Answer me this then: Did the NBA force Jim to hand out contract abominations to Mozgov and Deng? Did the lottery mechanism constrain Jim to only have a Superstar or bust FA strategy that dug them into a hole year on year? etc.

My point -- a crappy front office is a crappy front office. You can't excuse bad performance by pointing to an externality. This is particularly true when comparable contexts (e.g. SA, Boston, etc. in previous posts) were able to positively navigate same said environment.


Nobody has ever argued that they never made mistakes. that is not mutually exclusive with whether uncontrollable factors also contributed in making the rebuild longer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Daphanabe
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 862

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:41 pm    Post subject:

TransientTexan wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:
Forget the fact that good teams like San Antonio haven't had to rebuild because of good FO management.



What are these "good teams" like San Antonio that haven't had to rebuild?

Seems like San Antonio is unique.


Just focusing on championship comparables:

Celtics (pains me to say this). We were in the finals in the same year. They've missed the playoffs only once and are well positioned for the future.

Miami. LeBron leaves, bad luck with Bosh, yet they only missed playoffs once (and are surprisingly frisky this year).

Dallas. Won in 2011, missed playoffs only once since then (and are surprisingly frisky this year)





Miami is 31-34.
Dallas is 27-36.

This is your idea of "surprisingly frisky" teams that have never rebuilt and have no need to rebuild? You honestly think they are comparable to San Antonio two straight decades of success?

I don't even know where to begin ...


Just highlighting that if you take anyone who has won a championship (making that a potential definition for 'successful team' that is the crux of the original point I was debating) since 2000, we are the only team that has had to endure this length of 'crapness', of which the old regime played a big part in enabling.

The original point was that supposedly successful teams were punished by the NBA (brought up by another poster to ostensibly defend Jim Buss). I highlighted that good FOs can navigate that and gave SA as an example. It was highlighted that that is an exception -- at which point I highlighted other comparables (you ignored Celtics by the way). As to Dallas and Miami -- they are both a game or 2 away from the 8th playoff spots. And that is directly attributable to good FO moves (e.g. good FA pickups, not handing out stupid contracts, etc.)


just because a small handful of teams can mitigate some of the harmful affects of the balance does not invalidate the general trend. google 'anecdotal evidence' and you will discover why that is a bad way to try to prove a point. try to understand the distinction between possibility and probability.


Why be content with status quo? The fact that some people can navigate the environment, means that we should strive for that as well. That's why he was fired -- Jim was just plainly incompetent. He had his chance, he failed. They moved on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 7050

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:50 pm    Post subject:

TransientTexan wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:


Answer me this then: Did the NBA force Jim to hand out contract abominations to Mozgov and Deng? Did the lottery mechanism constrain Jim to only have a Superstar or bust FA strategy that dug them into a hole year on year? etc.

My point -- a crappy front office is a crappy front office. You can't excuse bad performance by pointing to an externality. This is particularly true when comparable contexts (e.g. SA, Boston, etc. in previous posts) were able to positively navigate same said environment.


Nobody has ever argued that they never made mistakes. that is not mutually exclusive with whether uncontrollable factors also contributed in making the rebuild longer.


You could argue that superstar or bust was the optimal choice for the situation that the Lakers were in. I credit the decent execution of this more to Mitch than Jim on this. Jim was responsible retaining Mitch and keeping Phil away from the FO, so there's that. There were a lot of things that went into Mosgov/Deng so it would be jumping the gun to say who was responsible for which part, but we can all agree that it was a rather large mistake. But I think that Magic/Pelinka is likely better suited to leading us forward from the current stage.
_________________
The Professional Scorer - Lou Williams

LFR - The Long Road Toward a Respectable Laker Defense
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TransientTexan
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 04 Jul 2015
Posts: 101

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:51 pm    Post subject:

Daphanabe wrote:

Why be content with status quo? The fact that some people can navigate the environment, means that we should strive for that as well. That's why he was fired -- Jim was just plainly incompetent. He had his chance, he failed. They moved on.


it is still important to have realistic expectations, or else you will shoot yourself in the foot (ie. Jacksonville Jaguars & Tom Coughlin, Cleveland Browns with Bill Belichick). if we take that "status quo" sentiment to its logical conclusion, it would advocate firing a coach/player/FO every couple years that go without a championship & you will be perpetually pressing the reset button and being counterproductive. Now if you agree with me that the previous statement is a bad extreme to take things to, then the only disagreement is where exactly to draw the line.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Daphanabe
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 862

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:12 am    Post subject:

TransientTexan wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:

Why be content with status quo? The fact that some people can navigate the environment, means that we should strive for that as well. That's why he was fired -- Jim was just plainly incompetent. He had his chance, he failed. They moved on.


it is still important to have realistic expectations, or else you will shoot yourself in the foot (ie. Jacksonville Jaguars & Tom Coughlin, Cleveland Browns with Bill Belichick). if we take that "status quo" sentiment to its logical conclusion, it would advocate firing a coach/player/FO every couple years that go without a championship & you will be perpetually pressing the reset button and being counterproductive. Now if you agree with me that the previous statement is a bad extreme to take things to, then the only disagreement is where exactly to draw the line.


Yes, obviously agreed you don't fire based on missing championships. So yes, it is the line.

Going back to the original point though, all I'm saying is that it is not fair to excuse Jim his performance, while at the same time explaining away Jeanie's success. The two are comparable not to each other, but with their respective peers. Jim obviously underperformed versus his peer group, while we can say worst case is Jeanie performed as she should have given context.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 7957

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:54 am    Post subject:

fiendishoc wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:


Answer me this then: Did the NBA force Jim to hand out contract abominations to Mozgov and Deng? Did the lottery mechanism constrain Jim to only have a Superstar or bust FA strategy that dug them into a hole year on year? etc.

My point -- a crappy front office is a crappy front office. You can't excuse bad performance by pointing to an externality. This is particularly true when comparable contexts (e.g. SA, Boston, etc. in previous posts) were able to positively navigate same said environment.


Nobody has ever argued that they never made mistakes. that is not mutually exclusive with whether uncontrollable factors also contributed in making the rebuild longer.


You could argue that superstar or bust was the optimal choice for the situation that the Lakers were in. I credit the decent execution of this more to Mitch than Jim on this. Jim was responsible retaining Mitch and keeping Phil away from the FO, so there's that. There were a lot of things that went into Mosgov/Deng so it would be jumping the gun to say who was responsible for which part, but we can all agree that it was a rather large mistake. But I think that Magic/Pelinka is likely better suited to leading us forward from the current stage.


I'd agree with that if they got fired after the draft. I do not trust Magic not to draft the next Okafor, if you catch my drift.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 7050

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:58 am    Post subject:

tox wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:


Answer me this then: Did the NBA force Jim to hand out contract abominations to Mozgov and Deng? Did the lottery mechanism constrain Jim to only have a Superstar or bust FA strategy that dug them into a hole year on year? etc.

My point -- a crappy front office is a crappy front office. You can't excuse bad performance by pointing to an externality. This is particularly true when comparable contexts (e.g. SA, Boston, etc. in previous posts) were able to positively navigate same said environment.


Nobody has ever argued that they never made mistakes. that is not mutually exclusive with whether uncontrollable factors also contributed in making the rebuild longer.


You could argue that superstar or bust was the optimal choice for the situation that the Lakers were in. I credit the decent execution of this more to Mitch than Jim on this. Jim was responsible retaining Mitch and keeping Phil away from the FO, so there's that. There were a lot of things that went into Mosgov/Deng so it would be jumping the gun to say who was responsible for which part, but we can all agree that it was a rather large mistake. But I think that Magic/Pelinka is likely better suited to leading us forward from the current stage.


I'd agree with that if they got fired after the draft. I do not trust Magic not to draft the next Okafor, if you catch my drift.


Better hope we keep our pick this year then because from all accounts (I haven't been watching ncaa) this is a hard draft to screw up at the top.
_________________
The Professional Scorer - Lou Williams

LFR - The Long Road Toward a Respectable Laker Defense
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 7957

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:05 am    Post subject:

fiendishoc wrote:
tox wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
Daphanabe wrote:


Answer me this then: Did the NBA force Jim to hand out contract abominations to Mozgov and Deng? Did the lottery mechanism constrain Jim to only have a Superstar or bust FA strategy that dug them into a hole year on year? etc.

My point -- a crappy front office is a crappy front office. You can't excuse bad performance by pointing to an externality. This is particularly true when comparable contexts (e.g. SA, Boston, etc. in previous posts) were able to positively navigate same said environment.


Nobody has ever argued that they never made mistakes. that is not mutually exclusive with whether uncontrollable factors also contributed in making the rebuild longer.


You could argue that superstar or bust was the optimal choice for the situation that the Lakers were in. I credit the decent execution of this more to Mitch than Jim on this. Jim was responsible retaining Mitch and keeping Phil away from the FO, so there's that. There were a lot of things that went into Mosgov/Deng so it would be jumping the gun to say who was responsible for which part, but we can all agree that it was a rather large mistake. But I think that Magic/Pelinka is likely better suited to leading us forward from the current stage.


I'd agree with that if they got fired after the draft. I do not trust Magic not to draft the next Okafor, if you catch my drift.


Better hope we keep our pick this year then because from all accounts (I haven't been watching ncaa) this is a hard draft to screw up at the top.

I hear that too. But even then, the difference between drafting a future superstar and a future "very good player" is still franchise-altering, so in that sense I'd have been more comfortable with the decision being in Mitch's hands. Oh well.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lucky_Shot
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 10 Jan 2016
Posts: 778

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:46 am    Post subject:

Wrong forum post
_________________
D'Angelo/Ennis
Young/Clarkson
Ingram/Deng
Nance/Randle
Black/Zubac
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 17633

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:48 am    Post subject:

We are getting away from the topic of the thread, but let me offer a couple comments to provide some perspective. Let's separate the business side of an NBA team from the operational side.

The business side is fairly simple. We often refer to sports teams as big business, but they really aren't. The typical NBA team produces less revenue than some Walmarts, and they sell fewer tickets than a large multiplex movie theater. It isn't that complicated.

The operational side is the more complex aspect of a sports team. It requires a unique set of skills that don't have much to do with conventional business. Guys with no particular business experience at all have been wildly successful, while guys with impressive resumes have been abject failures. Magic may or may not be as successful as Danny Ainge. Business experience has little or nothing to do with it.

A few years ago, I got skewered on this board for saying that I didn't think that Mitch Kupchak was the best GM in the league. At the time, we were doing really well. But GMs get judged by results. The results changed. A couple years from now, we'll see how everyone feels about Magic and Pelinka. It will be based on results. If we are still floundering, the knives will be out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Daphanabe
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 862

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:25 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
We are getting away from the topic of the thread, but let me offer a couple comments to provide some perspective. Let's separate the business side of an NBA team from the operational side.

The business side is fairly simple. We often refer to sports teams as big business, but they really aren't. The typical NBA team produces less revenue than some Walmarts, and they sell fewer tickets than a large multiplex movie theater. It isn't that complicated.

The operational side is the more complex aspect of a sports team. It requires a unique set of skills that don't have much to do with conventional business. Guys with no particular business experience at all have been wildly successful, while guys with impressive resumes have been abject failures. Magic may or may not be as successful as Danny Ainge. Business experience has little or nothing to do with it.

A few years ago, I got skewered on this board for saying that I didn't think that Mitch Kupchak was the best GM in the league. At the time, we were doing really well. But GMs get judged by results. The results changed. A couple years from now, we'll see how everyone feels about Magic and Pelinka. It will be based on results. If we are still floundering, the knives will be out.


Check out this article on Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/baileybrautigan/2016/03/21/where-all-that-money-comes-from-nba-team-valuations-visualized/#3db03da2444f) -- breaks down value by team on four distinct components: Market, Sport (rev share), Arena, and Brand. Business side takes care of the latter two -- for the Lakers around 40% of its value comes from these. Yes, not all of the value comes from the business side, but to say the business side is simple is an over-simplification to reinforce a bias that Jeanie's job is easy.

Am not saying its not, but from your post, there is nothing that highlights why the operational side is 'much harder' aside from your stating that it is.
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 ... 43, 44, 45, 46, 47  Next
Page 44 of 47
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
© 1995-2010 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