I sort of think along the same lines. The Suns did come somewhat close to a championship (or at least a Finals appearance) with D’Antoni and the SSOL system, but the Spurs (their worst matchup as an earlier poster pointed out), stomach punched them pretty much every year (you can claim suspensions, Nash’s bleeding, etc., but the fact remains that they couldn’t get over the hump regardless of whatever extenuating circumstances were in play; there are no moral victories in sports).

I would also argue that the rise of the Lakers (along with the Jazz and Hornets) last season as real conference contenders also contributed to closing the window on SSOL as it existed. Kerr didn’t have the same faith in the experiment as Colangelo/D’Antoni did, and tried to do his own job the best way he knew how, by building in the mold of the franchises he’d seen succeed.

Can we blame him? I don’t know. Current affairs suggest his plan is not paying off in the short-term at least. I agree that the plan as Porter envisioned was not much up the alley of the Suns’ personnel.

That said, systems must be built around the great player you have. If your great player doesn’t fit the system you want to use, then you better get another system, because you are in a self defeating spiral. Granted some great players can fit most systems, but I think putting Yao Ming into a running system wouldn’t work at all.

It’s a pointless argument about Gasol and Bryant, and hopelessly off topic. My point is this. You win in the NBA not because of systems, but because you have great players. And Gasol demonstrated he was that in Memphis, carrying his team to three 50 win seasons without much help.

I always love a good Kobe argument, obviously I don’t believe he is as good as you guys think he is, but we can argue that another time…

Sorry, but that’s a ridiculous statement. No way are they equally productive. And as far as Gasol being a “top ten” player, that means that he has been in the top 4 of all PFs and Cs. Off the top of my head, I would put Duncan, Shaq, Yao, Howard, Garnett, Bosh, J. ONeal (before the injuries), possibly Stoudamire ahead of him.

Flint,
From the wreckage that was the Lakers, post 2004, through 2007; Kobe was the only reason the Lakers 1) got to the playoffs at all and 2) remained a big draw on the road. I would contend both those conditions are necessary to consider a player really great. Pau was a member of a team being developed and, while they never rose above mediocre, that was still a step above the Lakers prior to the 2007-8 season.

In the first year after Shaq left the team, the Lakers had their coach resign mid-season and suffered many injuries that affected their win total. Not an excuse but an explanation of why their record was poor. But in the 2 seasons before Gasol came on board, the Lakers won 42 and then 45 games and made the playoffs both seasons (both seasons where the Grizz did not make the playoffs). Those seasons, with marginal NBA players *starting* (Kwame and Smush), I think, prove what Kobe’s value was and also show that Gasol, while a very good player, was not a franchise player that could overcome the same obstacles that you imply he was just 2 seasons earlier. I mean, look at those Memphis teams after Hubie and Fratello left but still had Gasol and Mike Miller and then look at those Lakers teams and I think you can see what the real value of Kobe is.

Gasol’s Grizzlies averaged 49 wins for three years in a tough Western conference. His best teammate were Mike Miller and Shane Battier. They rest of those rosters were an assorted collection of NBA detritus.

Kobe in the post-Shaq era pythaged out to 40.5 wins.

In my book, I would say Kobe and Gasol this year, and over their careers have been pretty much equally productive. You would have to give Kobe the nod as the more valuable player since his production is much harder to find from a shooting guard, but there isn’t much to choose between them as players.

Even before the economy went south, I could have easily made a solid argument against this city’s case for an NBA team. With the way things are now, it’s not even worthy of debate.

And speaking of Worthy, no knock on Dominque, but Worthy was the better all-around player. As underrated as any Hall of Famer can ever be, he meant more to the Lakers than most could see. That team wouldn’t have won with Dominque, unless he totally changed his style of play to mesh with what L.A. needed.

Re Amare – The problem is not the system, but personnel. While diminishing returns aren’t generally a huge issue in the NBA, they are with Shaq and Amare, who play essentially the same position.

Gasol has never been a top ten player, including this year. He is (career-wise) a borderline All-Star, who is a perfect fit for this roster.