Posted: Mon May 02, 2022 10:37 am Post subject: Can the Lakers Build a Culture That's More Than Just "Superstars?"
Interesting discussion by the Kamenetzky brothers and Kevin Arnovitz about how superstar-centric the Lakers are, and why there needs to be a shift in the team building process. I straight up lol'd at the part about Lebron being the longest tenured Laker. That's an insane amount of turnover for a world class organization.
Not only that but we have a lot of Laker alumni who are very vocal in the media. They don't have the patience for a team like the Lakers to wait for their stars to mature.
I remember a time when we drafted, and developed players, made shrewd basketball decisions and made trades maximizing our youth while bringing in complimentary pieces in their prime. We believed in building not only a 1 and done team but a team that could potentially be a dynasty. _________________ Music is my medicine
Last edited by Vancouver Fan on Mon May 02, 2022 5:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35857 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯Berkeley, CA
Posted: Mon May 02, 2022 11:52 am Post subject:
Vancouver Fan wrote:
danzag wrote:
Not when your owner only cares about big names.
And fans.
I remember a time when we drafted, and developed players, made shrewd basketball decisions and made trades maximizing our youth while brining in complimentary pieces in their prime. We believed in building not only a 1 and done team but a team that could potentially be a dynasty.
Caruso was a fan favorite but he was let go. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
If you want to make the most money possible in L.A. you have to:
1. Have superstars
2. Win titles
And the %s of winning a title without superstars is low.
It's the right thing to do imo, we just missed on the margins.
And we missed on WB
Different formula today. Superstars are obviously important, but so are young + complementary players, especially with the talent surge in the league. Curry and Klay should be thanking Joe Lacob for drafting another young dude who can drop 30+ in a playoff game. That's how you preserve your aging stars for another championship run.
If you want to make the most money possible in L.A. you have to:
1. Have superstars
2. Win titles
And the %s of winning a title without superstars is low.
It's the right thing to do imo, we just missed on the margins.
And we missed on WB
Different formula today. Superstars are obviously important, but so are young + complementary players, especially with the talent surge in the league. Curry and Klay should be thanking Joe Lacob for drafting another young dude who can drop 30+ in a playoff game. That's how you preserve your aging stars for another championship run.
I thought it's always been that formula.
Superstars and role players.
Injuries killed our stars.
And the Westbrook trade took away some of our role players.
Or maybe I didn't understand what "superstar-centric Lakers" meant. Sorry, I didnt listen to the youtube clip Will try to listen later on. _________________ ππ π π π #18!!!
Joined: 27 May 2010 Posts: 49219 Location: LA to the Bay
Posted: Mon May 02, 2022 5:11 pm Post subject:
Vancouver Fan wrote:
danzag wrote:
Not when your owner only cares about big names.
And fans.
I remember a time when we drafted, and developed players, made shrewd basketball decisions and made trades maximizing our youth while brining in complimentary pieces in their prime. We believed in building not only a 1 and done team but a team that could potentially be a dynasty.
Do you think sounds really care about that though or is do you think the front office thinks fans cares about that? I mean I think you know obviously getting somebody like LeBron back when we got him was exciting for a lot of folks. But even more casual fan friends thought that acquiring Russell Westbrook was weird.
I wish the "superstar" formula was mixed with the ability to create a good supporting cast. Once the Lakers landed AD, the Lakers should've focused on getting the best supporting cast they could've. They were on that path before the Westbrook trade.
I remember a time when we drafted, and developed players, made shrewd basketball decisions and made trades maximizing our youth while brining in complimentary pieces in their prime. We believed in building not only a 1 and done team but a team that could potentially be a dynasty.
Caruso was a fan favorite but he was let go.
Exactly. Just 1 of many garbage moves. _________________ Music is my medicine
Joined: 03 Oct 2003 Posts: 8354 Location: Santa Monica
Posted: Mon May 02, 2022 6:19 pm Post subject:
Once you have one or two superstars in place, you need a culture and a style of play, and then you fit everyone else around those things.
Seems like that's what the Lakers did in the Showtime era, and to a lesser extent during the Kobe era.
Now, they just fixate on having three superstars, and they just schlep together a "supporting cast" and a vague sense of how they want to play with all those guys.
I wish the "superstar" formula was mixed with the ability to create a good supporting cast. Once the Lakers landed AD, the Lakers should've focused on getting the best supporting cast they could've. They were on that path before the Westbrook trade.
A mix of both is needed.
Right. It's not one or the other. True superstars are rare. You need luck to draft them. There's lots of competition when they become UFAs and not many trade opportunities unless they want out.
Since a championship team needs good role players and 1 or 2 all-stars to go with your superstar, put those pieces in place while you are waiting for the opportunity to get a superstar.
Superstars win championships. Not really sure the premise of this thread is but the formula is and has always been 1-2 superstars and high level role players.
LeBron, in particular, is such a massive star that every organization bends over for him.. well Riles pretended like he didn't.. and by that notion, I agree it'd be nice to have a superstar built culture more like GS or Mil where there's more than such star power.
Superstars win championships. Not really sure the premise of this thread is but the formula is and has always been 1-2 superstars and high level role players.
LeBron, in particular, is such a massive star that every organization bends over for him.. well Riles pretended like he didn't.. and by that notion, I agree it'd be nice to have a superstar built culture more like GS or Mil where there's more than such star power.
I think it's more about the boom or bust mentality the FO has in regards to talent, rather than taking incremental steps to team building. With the way the league is changing today and FRP's providing immense value to playoff teams, it's not worth throwing away talent in order to get "superstars". The Westbrook trade kind of showed that. The team building paradigm is much different than what it was 10 years ago, and makeshift contenders / super teams aren't thriving because there is less parity in the league. That and you can get like 22-25 point production from guys like Desmond Bane or Jalen Brunson in the playoffs.
That's a good podcast episode. For those of you who didn't take the time to watch it (you should), here are some of the points that jumped out (my words and spin, not theirs):
1. If you're going to build a super team, you need for one of the stars to have a genuine connection to the organization. If you just bring in mercenaries, then no one has any emotional attachment to the team. This is true for the Lakers, Clippers, and Nets. Compare this to Milwaukee, where Giannis and Middleton have a deeper connection to the team and the fans.
2. Team culture is hard to define, but it means something. The work environment in Miami is different from the work environment in San Antonio, and they are both different from Los Angeles.
3. Given that Lebron is the longest tenured Laker and that everyone who was on the roster when we signed him is now gone, what kind of culture could we possibly have?
4. The bubble team developed strong chemistry, but there were galvanizing events (Kobe's death, the pandemic, the bubble itself). Furthermore, Lebron and Davis had expended a lot of personal capital to get Davis on the team, and they were motivated to show what they could do as teammates. Once they won the title and left the bubble, this motivation receded.
5. Some executives around the league are questioning whether signing big money mercenaries is really the way to go. Does someone like Kyrie Irving really add value to a team? Sure, superstars win titles, but is that true when the superstar(s) are just mercenaries with no emotional connection to the team or the fans? _________________ Internet Argument Resolved
Posted: Mon May 02, 2022 9:14 pm Post subject: Re: Can the Lakers Build a Culture That's More Than Just "Superstars?"
KindCrippler2000 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoddkZ8BffI
Interesting discussion by the Kamenetzky brothers and Kevin Arnovitz about how superstar-centric the Lakers are, and why there needs to be a shift in the team building process. I straight up lol'd at the part about Lebron being the longest tenured Laker. That's an insane amount of turnover for a world class organization.
Oh NOW they want the Lakers to 'build a culture beyond just punting for Superstars'.
They were for years when we got D'lo, Ingram, Randle, Clarkson, Nance, Zubac, Bryant.
That's a good podcast episode. For those of you who didn't take the time to watch it (you should), here are some of the points that jumped out (my words and spin, not theirs):
1. If you're going to build a super team, you need for one of the stars to have a genuine connection to the organization. If you just bring in mercenaries, then no one has any emotional attachment to the team. This is true for the Lakers, Clippers, and Nets. Compare this to Milwaukee, where Giannis and Middleton have a deeper connection to the team and the fans.
2. Team culture is hard to define, but it means something. The work environment in Miami is different from the work environment in San Antonio, and they are both different from Los Angeles.
3. Given that Lebron is the longest tenured Laker and that everyone who was on the roster when we signed him is now gone, what kind of culture could we possibly have?
4. The bubble team developed strong chemistry, but there were galvanizing events (Kobe's death, the pandemic, the bubble itself). Furthermore, Lebron and Davis had expended a lot of personal capital to get Davis on the team, and they were motivated to show what they could do as teammates. Once they won the title and left the bubble, this motivation receded.
5. Some executives around the league are questioning whether signing big money mercenaries is really the way to go. Does someone like Kyrie Irving really add value to a team? Sure, superstars win titles, but is that true when the superstar(s) are just mercenaries with no emotional connection to the team or the fans?
Excellent summary. I'd add Bulls to the teams you mentioned in point 1. They will probably lose Lavine and have no choice but to build around DeRozan. They do have a few young pieces, but Zo's injury really puts their future in question as well.
A few more points from that podcast (again, mostly my words, not theirs):
6. If an organization has consiglieres (presumably a reference to the Rambii), it's a dysfunctional organization.
7. The fact that the Lakers hired Pelinka and the Knicks hired Leon Rose suggests that both organizations think more in terms of talent than team building. Agents represent talent and recognize talent. They don't think in terms of team building.
8. There are different ways to approach team building. You can be an analytics guy like Presti or Morey. You can be an old school basketball guy like Riley. But you need to have a plan. In the case of the Heat, they recognize that some guys are Heat players, and some aren't. This ties into team culture. _________________ Internet Argument Resolved
in today's NBA, system, culture is >>>>>> star power. Look at the elite teams today, their star(s) can miss games and they'll just plug someone else in with little or no affect. sure not gonna work during the entire season, but for a few games it does. but our ownership is still living in the past, thinking every star will fight their way to come here just because of the glamour of being a Laker. big name star power is embedded in Buss family's DNA, the current Laker culture will never changed until they have a new ownership.
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