The biggest news surrounding the Lakers this weekend was the imminent departure of long-time team trainer Gary Vitti. To be clear, the news that the 2015-16 season would be Vitti’s last run with the purple and gold was reported in mid-April, but Mike Bresnahan of the Los Angeles Times reinvigorated the discussion with a recent feature on the 30-year franchise mainstay. The piece chronicles Vitti’s run with the team and highlights some of the key moments during his tenure. Among the many revealing quotes, one of the more interesting bits involved how Julius Randle’s injury last season affected Vitti’s departure:
So much has happened the last few years, so little of it positive. Vitti even called it “a nightmare.” Few would disagree, the Lakers continually losing Bryant and Steve Nash to injury, along with a slew of games.
“When somebody gets hurt, I blame myself. That’s the Laker way — you’ve got a problem, you go in the bathroom, you look in the mirror, you start with that person,” Vitti said. “The one that really affected me and maybe even affected this decision [to retire] was Julius Randle. All of his doctors and his surgeon are saying that nothing was missed, but the guy goes out there and breaks his leg the first game [last season]. That one really bothered me.”
Vitti connects with his players like few other trainers in the league and since joining the Lakers in 1984, there is perhaps no player he has bonded with more over the years than Kobe Bryant. Now, as both their careers may be coming to a close, Vitti revealed that the two recently shared some thoughts on the upcoming season:
“He was asking about our young kids, and I said, ‘You cannot believe how quick and athletic Jordan Clarkson is. He looks fantastic,'” Vitti said. “I said I personally thought D’Angelo Russell is going to be a star. He makes hard things look easy when he has the ball in his hands.
“Then Kobe said to me, ‘Well, then who’s going to play [small forward]?’ I looked at him and I said, ‘You.’ And with absolute, 100% confidence, he said, ‘I can do that.'”
Can Bryant, soon to turn 37, really do it? His last three seasons were cut short by injury and he became a part-time player last season, sitting out eight of his last 16 games for “rest” before sustaining a torn rotator cuff in January. He is under contract for one more season at $25 million.
“When Nash retired, that didn’t mean he couldn’t play in an NBA game. The problem was how much time did he need to get ready for the next game.” Vitti said. “He had lots of issues that prevented him from playing an NBA schedule.
“That’s going to be the big question with Kobe, and we’re just going to have to feel it out. It’s been a while since he’s played. We just need to see.”
There’s a lot of good stuff there, but what is of most immediate interest to Lakers fans is Kobe’s apparent willingness to step into the small forward role for his (maybe) final season. For more insight on how that transition could look for Bean, our own Darius Soriano covered it yesterday. Give it a look as well.
**
In the interest of Bryant’s role in next year’s lineup, news also emerged that the 20-year vet could play some power forward this season, here’s the jist:
Coach Byron Scott told NBA.com it’s possible Bryant could spend time at power forward.
“If we don’t get another guard, then Kobe’s in that mix,” Scott said of a potential switch. “I’m kind of going through those scenarios. But not necessarily as far as who’s starting and who doesn’t … I think [Bryant] will play more 3 than 2. If we can get him at the elbows and at the mid-post, the more effective he’ll be.
“I don’t think he needs to be using up the whole 94-foot floor. If we can cut that down some, I think that saves his legs as much as possible. But if we can get him where he operates best, which to me is elbows on each area, top of the key, at the pinch post, at the mid-post, then I think he can be real effective for us.”
From Byron Scott: Kobe could see time as power forward
The Lakers roster does appear to have a solid amount of versatility as currently constructed and seeing Kobe as the 4-man in creative “small ball” lineups during spurts is certainly viable. Of course, having the 38-year old exert energy battling with big guys defensively would not be the wisest of moves, so the key is to implement such lineups against match ups where he can be most effective without causing a detriment to his overall health.
**
One player who is cemented into the power forward spot for next season (we hope) is Julius Randle. His return is finally behind him after a promising — albeit limited — Summer League campaign and now, as he told SB Nation’s Drew Garrison, he is excited to grow with the Lakers’ young core:
“To have us three young guys coming in together and trying to change the ways of the organization as far as winning, and getting the Lakers where they’re used to being, it’s definitely exciting,” Julius said when asked about his outlook on playing alongside Jordan Clarkson and D’Angelo Russell. “We’re all excited for the process.”
The Lakers’ talented trio took its first step together, and the best example of their abilities meshing beautifully came against the Dallas Mavericks. A beautifully orchestrated pick-and-roll set featuring a stunning bounce pass from Russell to Randle, a drive-and-kick from Randle, and a corner-three from Clarkson stood as the best example of them clicking as a group. “It’s learning how to play with each other in any way, shape, form or fashion,” Randle said of that perfect moment in the Thomas and Mack Center.
He concluded his thought, “We’re learning everybody’s spots on the floor, creating for each other, and figuring out how to do what’s best for each other on the court.”
**
As Randle looks to put last season behind him, Jordan Clarkson is trying to prove this past year was no fluke. James Herbert of CBS Sports recently caught up with the second team All-Rookie and he relayed this sentiment:
Just before going to Summer League, Clarkson flew to New York to work out with Nash. When he and a horde of Lakers fans arrived in Las Vegas, there were Clarkson jerseys everywhere. In his first game, he dropped an easy 23 points, looking like he didn’t need to be there. In his last, he threw down the dunk of the summer over a helpless Jack Cooley of the Utah Jazz. Clarkson said he always had confidence, but he took it to another level after everything he’d learned from his first season and the time he’d put in afterward.
“I thought he was really impressive,” Scott said. “He’s shown that he’s grown tremendously and that the season that he had last year wasn’t a fluke, that he’s continued to work to get better. And we’re looking for big things from Jordan.”
[…]
Clarkson, for his part, sees himself as a work in progress. He grew up a track star, not playing organized basketball until junior high. “I’ve got a lot of room to grow,” he said, preferring not to say much about what he’s already accomplished. He thinks he and Russell will complement each other and be fun to watch. While he clearly believes in himself, he’d rather let others talk him up. Despite everything that has changed this year, he can easily transport himself back to Barclays Center, where he heard his name called after 45 other prospects.
“Just trying to prove people wrong,” Clarkson said. “That’s all that ran through my mind. But I’m still trying to do the same thing. I feel like people still sleep, so I’m just trying to wake ‘em up.”
The rest of the piece does a great job focusing on Clarkson’s background, his time at the University of Missouri and his father’s battle with cancer — it is most certainly worth a look for Laker fans.
**
Lastly, there are no two words that trigger a more heated discussion around Lakers circles than — I hesitate to say this in fear of the forest fire that may ensue — “Jim Buss”. Despite not being a highly public figure, Buss is so closely associated with the Lakers’ recent misfortune that he has been outright vilified by the team faithful. So with that, Shawn F. Matian of Sports Out West recently portrayed Buss in full detail, taking “A look at his past, present and future”. The piece spans five pages, but here is a brief excerpt:
In the summer of 2012, the Lakers assembled a roster that was feared by everyone. By acquiring Steve Nash and Dwight Howard to play alongside Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol, many thought the Lakers were on their way to winning a championship. Who was praised most for these changes? General manager Mitch Kupchak. After an up-and-down season that ended with Dwight Howard leaving for Houston and the experiment not working out as Lakers fans were hoping, who has received most of the blame for it? Jim Buss.
Buss has been accused of many things, namely having an ego, being stubborn and making bad basketball decisions. Although making accusations are simple, solidifying the complaints with pertinent evidence can prove to be quite challenging. In fact, if one was to analyze the facts in relation to the grievances against Buss, the results will show that the majority of the complaints are unfounded and exaggerated.
Unfortunately for Buss, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty does not apply in the public court of opinion. Buss has already been investigated, charged, convicted, and sentenced without ever having a fair trial. Maybe expecting fans to objectively scrutinize the facts before reaching a conclusion is a expecting too much. But then again, maybe the facts have never been presented to them.
If you leave this links post only reading one article today, this should be the one. For all the indoctrinated animosity spewed towards Buss, it is often based on a lack of understanding about who he truly is and what exactly he is responsible for. The above piece offers insight into exactly that and should provide a much clearer — and hopefully more positive — perspective of Jim Buss, the person.
Michael says
A player´s well-being is tough to have insight on. The Nash injuries plus all the others in the past few seasons have been tough to swallow. It is good to have players around who don´t twist and tweak their bodies (Bass, Hibbert). Lots of the players who make those hard-to-believe cuts such as Derek Rose or high fly acts who eventually end up with hip or knee problems are doing things which the body cannot handle in the long run. Vitti has done all he could to help alleviate some of the causes. Picking up players of a certain mold can also help.
rr says
Really questionable article. A few points:
For all the indoctrinated animosity spewed towards Buss, it is often based on a lack of understanding about who he truly is and what exactly he is responsible for
—
1. There is an equally indoctrinated defense of the Buss FO in the the Lakers blogosphere. SSR revolves entirely around a group of people who vigorously and confrontationally defend the FO, and FO defenders are pretty loud here as well. And outside of the Lakers internet bubble, the current FO is not seen positively.
2. Your word choices–like indoctrinated and lack of understanding–show your own biases about the issue.
3. Jim Buss is the highest-ranking basketball official in the org and in his own words, is responsible for basketball operations.
4. Whether Jim is over his head or just unlucky or somewhere in between, is, ultimately, irrelevant. What is relevant is that decisions that work and move the team forward get made. If that starts happening, then the Jim Buss FO will take less heat. If it doesn’t, then Jim will be replaced.
As to the issue of who ultimately made the call to hire MDA, the piece does provide some speculative evidence that Dr. Buss made the decision from the hospital. But I have never found that to be particularly persuasive. Since the the decision did not work out very well, Jim would have been better off taking the hit for it, rather than putting it on his dying father.
rr says
Also, most fans don’t hate Jim Buss. They, like Magic Johnson, hate losing. That is what guys like Matian always miss.
Craig W. says
If you want to find a reason to dislike him, you will find a reason to dislike him. Statistics can prove just about anything you want them to, so that wouldn’t be where I would go to prove my point. This isn’t an objective, fact driven discussion. It is opinion, emotion, anger, and expectations.
There have been mistakes, by all members of the Laker ownership/front office, but I challenge anyone to find any organization – particularly a sports organization – that doesn’t make mistakes. Sports organizations are driven by arbitrary rules that moderate over time, in both intent and enforcement.
Personally, I like where the Lakers are, vs the last two years, and really am hoping for the best this year.
Todd says
The Jim Buss article is not unbiased — it seems to me that it’s agenda was to frame Jim as a likeable guy. That’s fine, I’m sure he is a good guy.
However, I don’t think the criticism that Jim gets on FBG is directed at him personally. It’s directed at his ability to be the executive vice president of basketball operations of the Los Angeles Lakers. Quite frankly the team has not performed well at all under his direction.
The author does not shed any light on why Dr. Buss allowed Jim to make a multitude of moves on his own (Nash trade/Howard trade/hire MB) then suddenly felt the need to have the final say in the PJ vs MDA decision. It would have been helpful to understand that backstory since it is a major point of contention about Jim.
The author mentions cap space and the fact that free agents Durant and Horford are available next summer. However, the author didn’t ask Jim why the Lakers have not been able to sign an elite player despite having ample space to do so these past few years.
Heck, the Lakers have gotten a lot of heat from multiple sources about the team not using analytics despite a growing trend around the league to do so. What does Jim think about that?
Lastly, it would have been helpful to hear Jim discuss his promise. He’s got two years left — does he think he can keep to the time table or not. It’s relevant because his sister certainly remembers to bring it up in every interview she does — most recently in an ESPN article just a few weeks back.
mud says
it doesn’t matter what anyone here thinks of Jim Buss. he’s an owner and an official and you aren’t. he is the one who will ultimately lose if things stay bad and you aren’t. think away….
Darius Soriano says
I repeat this a lot, but it’s because I truly believe it: I think many of the people who criticize the front office are, in the discussion of process vs. results, mostly only worried about results. RR’s comment, though he’s been more lax on this in the past, sort of speaks to this when he notes that the team is bad, so Buss catches heat and once the team is better, they’ll catch less of it. It’s further captured by the comment that some of these decisions just need to start working.
I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but focusing too much/only on the results often comes at the expense of the process used while removing context for why something is what it is. I won’t run down the laundry list of things that I think went into getting the Lakers to where they are now, but I will say I do not think a lot of them are really front office related. The coaching stuff, yes. The PR & perception issues are certainly a piece of that too. But the team is bad for many more reasons that, at least to me, are the fallout from decisions that were totally defensible at the time they were made. When this is the case, I’m going to focus on the process and not just the result. The result sucks, of course. But it’s not the only thing to consider and I get the sense that many of those who strongly (i.e. the “Jim should quit/be fired” people) focus on that result while not giving enough consideration to the factors that influence it.
Corey says
On Jim, aside from hiring dantoni over phil, which honestly you could defend the idea of wanting a coach that would be there for more than 2 years, every move the front office has made was sound. They’re in a post championship down period. Jim’s just the scapegoat. Mavs and Celtics are in the same spot, But only the Lakers could have Stephen A. calling for Jims job like Jim spat in his kids face or something.
Myles Duve says
rr,
Being that I have seen your comments regularly on FB&G, I can attest that you — like most FBG regulars — are among the more sensible of Lakers fans. In saying that, I can certainly respect your viewpoint on Buss and particularly agree with you that there are a good amount of avid Buss defenders throughout the Lakers blogosphere as well. I think what is being overlooked here is the fact that beyond the blogoshphere there is an unquestionably large amount of fans — who all certainly hate losing — point to Jim Buss as the culprit for the Lakers’ struggles without much reason. This is primarily due to the fact that talking heads with the biggest of platforms do so as well. So yes there are certainly a good amount of defenders throughout the Lakers blogoshphere but their reach does not nearly exceed that of the major networks, which is why we see an imbalance in Buss defenders vs. advocators.
Therefore when using terms such as “indoctrinated”, “lack of understanding” or “hopefully more positive” it is not me necessarily encouraging you to support Jim Buss, it is more so addressing those who have complete conviction that he is the cause for all the Lakers’ woes without much understanding or reasoning — which may or may not include some of our loyal readers here. So take the linked piece for what you will, there may be some worthwhile information and some not-so-worthwhile information, but regardless it offers a different perspective, which is always beneficial to any such discussion. Again, I appreciate you sharing your opinions here on FB&G as always and look forward to reading more in the near future.
Kevin says
@Todd: The author does not shed any light on why Dr. Buss allowed Jim to make a multitude of moves on his own (Nash trade/Howard trade/hire MB) then suddenly felt the need to have the final say in the PJ vs MDA decision. It would have been helpful to understand that backstory since it is a major point of contention about Jim.
—
My sense is that Dr. Buss had veto rights on all decisions until he passed. So whether its mentioned or not he had a hand in the Nash trade, the MB hiring and the Howard trade. Since Dr. Buss passed the kids have been left to their own devices and they have understandably struggled.
The question is whether Jim (in particular) can help the Lakers turn the corner or does this rebuild lingers to the point that circumstances call for his ouster.
Justin says
The biggest problem I have with the Jim debate is that people openly want a guy fired without giving him a real chance. The Lakers have been bad for 2 years. No team has ever gone from a contender to lottery to contender in that fast of time. In his 2 years he has gotten 3 good young players. People seem to argue he didn’t use his money to go get a solid starter at say small forward. They hate the fact that he keeps swinging for the fences. except that they love his father, who did nothing but swing for the fences. The only difference between Jim and Jerry Buss seems to be luck. Jim swung and got Pau, Odom, Dwight, Nash, CP3 and tired for Melo and LMA. Jerry swung for Kareem, Shaq, and Magic an hit on all of them. See the problem is not the results so much as people are spoiled by the luck of the father. Thing with Luck is that it always swings both ways. Maybe Jim knocks it out of the park the next 3 years making the same decisions.
So I agree with rr that Lakers fans hate losing. But they are the problem. Lakers want the head of Jim Buss and act like it will solve all their problems. When you constantly fire guys all it does is create instability. Look at the current Kings as a perfect example (including what happens when you get rid of the bad Maloofs and don’t change anyone else in the FO). For those that think Jim makes nothing but bad moves and everyone else in the organization is cursing him under their breaths because he refuses to listen, well you are completely wrong. Jim gets his information from everyone in the organization. If Jim really did just do a bad job these last couple of years, firing him won’t fix the issue. The only thing then would be to remove 75% of the FO (good luck finding better replacements in that many positions). By the way, do you think it is Jim on the phone calling about Nash? Nope. If you want to fire someone it would be Mitch (who by all accounts would get another job in a nano second because everyone respects him and believes he does a good job). Jim just has the final say (like every owner out there). You think Mitch is saying I have this great deal to get Durant and Jim is like I have a better deal set up for Nash that I did by myself. This is the problem you want to scapegoat one guy and think that solves everything.
By the way the Kings and Twolves have both missed the playoffs longer than 7 years now. Rebuilding is slow for just about every team. Those powerful Thunder, took them 4 years to gather up this assets and become a lowly playoff team. And that was after selling off two major assets (Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis) because they missed the playoffs for a few more years before that. How about GS, They missed the playoffs 10 of 11 years before it took them 7 years to build a championship team around Curry (so 18 years after Webber). In fact look at all the contenders minus the Spurs and you will see 5 plus year rebuild on all of them. Again Jim is entering his 3rd and has Russell, Randle, and Clarkson to show. in two more years if those players come on strong, FA would like to come and suddenly the Lakers rebuilt a contender in 4-5 years. Which would be unheard of for any other franchise in the last two decades (again except the Spurs). So it seems like Lakers fans have Spur envy. Come on we are better than that. The rebuild is going actually really well. I know losing is tough but the NBA is designed that all teams go through this at some point (yes even the Spurs will hit it eventually. Pop allure some how gets the Spurs to cheat the system and have all six unpaid players. Once Pop is retired the Spurs are in for an ugly rebuild. And considering they have been on top for so long like the Lakers, Spurs FO heads will likely be called for).
rr says
This isn’t an objective, fact driven discussion.
—-
27-55
21-61
Still owe two draft picks.
Anonymous says
Kevin Pelton, writes about Under the Radar 2016 Free Agents:
http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/13327970/nba-radar-free-agents-2016
Jordan Clarkson
Get ready to hear the name “Gilbert Arenas” in conjunction with Clarkson repeatedly over the next 11 months. Like the former NBA point guard, Clarkson has performed beyond his second-round draft status, setting him up for a big payday as a restricted free agent next summer.
Because Clarkson will be a free agent with two years of experience, he’ll be subject to the so-called “Arenas provision” limiting other teams from offering more than the mid-level exception as a starting point on an offer sheet. In year three, however, teams can offer Clarkson what would be his maximum salary — somewhere in the ballpark of $23 million, depending where the cap falls — setting up the possibility of a three-year, $34 million offer similar to the one the Houston Rockets used to acquire Omer Asik and Jeremy Lin as restricted free agents in 2012. Or teams could go an additional year and offer four years and up to around $58 million.
To justify such a big offer, Clarkson will need to build on his solid rookie season while sharing the ball with No. 2 overall pick D’Angelo Russell. If so, his free agency will be fascinating to watch.
____
Does someone know if the Lakers could have signed Clarkson to a longer initial deal? I saw recently that the Pacers signed Christmas (also a 2nd round pick) to a 4 year deal. Thankfully the Lakers have cap space to ink Jordan to a longer term deal if necessary. However, it would have been nice to have him not hit free agency (restricted) for a few more years.
George says
The biggest problem I have with the Jim debate is that people openly want a guy fired without giving him a real chance.
—–
Supporters always act as if the Jim Buss FO just came on the scene and are deserving of our patience while they unwind from the decisions of the previous regime. They gloss over the fact that it was the decisions of this very FO that have produced the two worst records in franchise history, back to back no less.
T. Rogers says
The Lakers are a franchise built on winning. And Dr. Buss set the gold standard for American sports team owners. Jim’s problems are the team is losing and he’s not Dr. Buss. If he takes care of the former no one will care about the latter.
But as long as the Lakers are in the 20 wins club Jim will get blitzed by fans and media alike. Even the recent issues with the team’s analytics wouldn’t matter they were winning. As long as the Lakers are losing no defense of Jim can stand. And if they start contending again no amount of criticism will matter.
rr says
Myles,
Thanks for the feedback. I do not follow the Stephen A. Smith types, whereas I do closely follow the Lakers blogosphere, so I can take the point that Jim Buss takes excessive abuse from that quarter and it influences people in ways that I do not see. And, for the record, I do think, between the Veto and some other factors, that the Jim Buss FO should get some more time.
But what I keep noticing, whether it is done in a reasonable way as you do, or in a more confrontational way, as we see with the usual posters here in the thread, is that FO defense cases generally focus not on the team, but on perceived issues with the people making the opposite case. Uniformed, spoiled, entitled, indoctrinated, dumb, hateful, fans are the problem, he is an official and you aren’t etc. And the reason for that is obvious: the results are bad and the NBA is, at the end of the day about results. So people defending the FO always quickly run into that.
As to process, I think some of the decisions looked good at the time, some looked questionable, some reasonable, others looked bad. The recent ones IMO:
Russell: good but risky
Randle: reasonable
Nance Jr: very questionable
Williams, BB, Hibbert: reasonable but need to make future gains from them. Giving up the pick was questionable.
Byron: very questionable
Kobe: bad
Young: bad
Lin: good
Hill: (bringing him back on the deal they did) questionable
Chasing Anthony and Aldridge: very questionable
PurpleBlood says
Myles,
Your response to rr is not only well-written, but garners him the respect he certainly deserves; he happens to be my favorite commenter here, & there are a number of fine commenters, as you probably know, namely: Mid, Craig, Vasheed, Warren, Robet, KO et al, whom I always look forward to reading. As an avid follower, & humble commenter of FB&G, your even-handed reply is more than appreciated.
___
Re: The Jim Buss `issue´,
Darius has said it best, IMO, in that it´s never ONE person or situation that causes an org. to slide.
Myles Duve says
Like I said, forest fire.
rr says
Myles,
By internet standards this thread is not even a lit match. (heh)
Purple,
Thanks.
T Rogers,
Yep, and the baseball hats/mullet would be endearing quirks.
Myles Duve says
Haha. My “forest fire” comment was cut way short by accidentally hitting send but basically much respect to rr, I appreciate the words PurpleBlood and as always Darius hit it right on the head. Thank you for reading, guys.
david h says
hey myles: you’re another good egg hand picked by darius; keep up the good work. especially like how you pick up and entertain the reactions of others with total respect.
personally, I abscribe to the theory of unintended consequences and that in time, what once was, will return. at what costs and when is the question.
Go lakers
R says
So how long should the FO get a pass beccause of The Veto? The trade that would have brought CP3 to the Lakers would have paired two extremely ball-dominant players with still only one ball on the court, as far as any of us know. By that I am of course referring to Kobe and Chris Paul having to share the ball. I’ve heard the rest of the plan was to bring Beasley on board. Well if true I think it would have been a smelly mess, to be honest. I’d prefer to believe the next shoe to drop would have been the acquisition of Dwight Coward. In any event, while interesting, it’s likely the result would have been a pretty flawed team.
tankyou says
At this point I view the Lakers FO only hope for salvation as resting on Russel/Randle. Those two picks basically are going to define us for the next few years. I basically agree with all of rr’s comments about the good/bad/risky choices above. My biggest frustration at this point is that Kobe’s style of play can be a serious hindrance in allowing us to see what Russle/Randle, and perhaps even Clarkson can do. IF Kobe ends up being a neary 40% usage guy and still plays 30-34mpg that eats up a lot of ball dominance time. Even Randle is going to need the ball more to be effective, its not like he’s Ed Davis. At least Hibbert doesn’t really require the ball. Plus Swaggy and Williams aren’t going to change at this point in their careers, if they are touching the ball its going to lead to shots a large percentage of the time. That’s the main reason I was so frustrated with us getting Williams, I viewed it as yet another ball dominant guy to take time away from our young guys. Plus, seriously we are going to have Kobe/Williams/Swaggy potentially on the floor a lot and they all are very poor defenders at this point.
If Russel and Randle aren’t getting a lot of touches on offense, I’m going to be very upset. This is not a “win now” team by any stretch of the imagination, and no Kobe end of career season long parades either for me, I would rather remember him as he was when he was dominant–and still played defense.
Lex says
Buss had the final say on who the coach will be so it is his fault. They already have Phil J. and he turned around and hired D’ant instead. It does not matter who says that he did not hire D’Ant cause he has the final say with regards to basketball matters. Why would anybody who has a Broken Kobe, broken Pau, Howard coming back from back surgery and broken Nash go out and hire a run and gun coach?
kO says
First I agress with rr post. While I don’t sit in Lakers office I do have friends that are in a position to offer real time info and spend time there. The in fighting among family members is real and distructive and centered around Jim.
Lest we forget Jerry West left because he could not get along with Phil. Phil left because he did not get along or respect Jim. Bottom line franchise has been crap since.
If this is not a reflection of weak and poor Management then I know zero about business. In my world when head guy can’t get along and the team fails they fire the head.
They are just lucky TW was run as bad and grossly overpaid for a product that resulted in 45% decrease in ratings.
How long would the head of a TV network last with these results?
Say what you want but none of this failure exists if West or Riley was running things. Show me one success story in Jim’s past and I will shut up!
Joel says
Anon: I read the Pelton article. I think some of the players listed could, for various reasons, not receive a contract offer from their current teams and hit the summer of 2016 as unrestricted free agents.
Here are my thoughts:
– Harrison Barnes, age 23, SF: The warriors have to cut costs somewhere with Curry, Thompson, Green and Bogut all making mid 8 figures. I think that’s why they drafted Kevon Looney — to take Barnes place.
– Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, age 21, SF/SG: He’s awful offensively but he’s Michael Cooper defensively. This is the 6th man you want on your bench.
– Meyers Leonard, age 23, C/PF: I’ve always liked this kid. I think, he needs a change of scenery to blossom. Big plus he has range on his jumper.
– Jonas Valanciunas, age 23, C: I think he gets an extension and doesn’t hit the open market. However, I’d pounce if he did. He has the same stats as Hibbert but Jonas is ascending where Hibbert has plateaued/descending.
So yea, there might be some FA shopping other than for KD.
Justin says
@ George, People who want Jim fired ignore that he traded for Gasol and built two championship teams. People act like the front office drastically changed only when Jerry died. Heck in you look at the moves Jim has made they reflect the same way Jerry approved moves (and both only approve moves). Jerry gave Magic the largest contract ever (and then Shaq). Jim gave Kobe a huge contract. They believed in taking care of the players (like how they paid for Ronny Turaifs heart surgery). Was paying Kobe a bad move…Probably, but it wouldn’t have changed much in team history. All it does is give them more cap space to not get someone (because again FA aren’t coming to a bottom feeding team) and in a worse case scenario they get someone like Bledsoe who causes them to lose the Russell pick (though I still believe the Suns would have matched). And guess what if they lost Kobe to FA and struck out on guys like Monroe or Bledsoe, they have to hit the floor and thus pay someone like Hill and Young $20 million each. See the move long term really didn’t alter their team. The fact that these are the two worse Lakers teams i history is more about the A) injuries (no other Laker team in history had 300+ games lost to injuries), B) salary cap (previous Laker teams could pay someone like Shaq more than everyone), and C) went with younger and bargain bin players (which the fans wanted).
@rr yes they still owe draft picks. But I think A) you are overrating the draft picks and B) what else were they supposed to give up in the trades? Remember the Lakers did not have a PG when they traded for Nash and were at the time a playoff team (same with Dwight). Everyone at the time said it was a great move. Draft picks in the twenties are lucky to become even starter quality players. If you had a chance to get a former all-star and the best center in the league for 4 starter to bust players you would do it. Heck in three years you will get to know who those players were and it won’t be much. The only good pick of the group will likely be next years and if it is pick number 12-14 all you gave up was probably a rotation player (the same thing you can get at any point during FA). The only real thing they gave up was a 5% chance a steal is there when they would have drafted (and in that case there is a good chance they pass on that player because all GMs miss those players all the time).
As for recent moves:
Russell: good but risky (if the goal is to get superstars this one is a no brainer. Russell was without a doubt a top 4 pick according to every expert and scout. And the analytics that pegged him for a bust was because his numbers are so off the chart that they seemed fake. Yes there were safer moves, but hard to argue it is a bad move).
Randle: reasonable (really only Vonleh was in his tier when they drafted and he just got traded for pennies on the dollar because Charlotte didn’t think that much of him).
Nance Jr: very questionable (late 1st rounder. again go look at the history of these picks. they have done studies, most are out of the league. Getting a give who is a rotation player is the goal. Nance is a defensive player, which they need. In the worst case he is off the team for two years with a small salary. The Spurs have players like that as well. Every team does in fact. Seems like you are killing them for not getting a steal every year. Plus shouldn’t we at least give them a season before we judge a pick).
Williams, BB, Hibbert: reasonable but need to make future gains from them. Giving up the pick was questionable. Solid but unspectacular move. Will help them not give Philly a high lottery pick, won’t hurt their cap.
Byron: very questionable. Ok agreed.
Kobe: bad. Probably but again still wouldn’t make a difference and needed to hit the salary floor.
Young: bad. If he has even a decent year he will be on a great contract. Bad if he plays like last year. low cap won’t effect the championship years.
Lin: good
Hill: (bringing him back on the deal they did) questionable. Again they had to hit the salary floor. If it doesn’t go to him they over pay someone else. One year to get to the floor is not a bad move.
Chasing Anthony and Aldridge: very questionable. Nope only hurts fans egos. Literally does nothing else. Unless you think some of the other FA are even on a championship team. Just so fans get this, you do not need to build your team in the one offseason. In fact getting role players who don’t work with your stars only makes it difficult to trade for the right player later. If all you care about is championships, you want to get your core first, then build around them.
@R Every GM should be given 4-5 years minimum. Heck look at the Rockets GM, he did absolutely nothing for that team until he got Harden. He looked like a bust GM until then. No team has build a championship contender in less than 5 years in the last two decades, so I don’t understand why 5 years isn’t given to all GMs (again except the Spurs but only because of the weird Robinson injury and Duncan draft luck. Literally if they draft second Spurs are a different team the last two decades and likely would have had to rebuild twice by now, but that is just my guess).
George says
From an LA Times article on Lakers TV ratings. David Carter, executive director of the USC Sports Business Institute, is quoted.
The Lakers’ TV ratings have declined in each of the three seasons they have partnered with TWC, which is paying the team $5 billion over 25 years. The team’s ratings are down 57% from only two years ago, when it posted a 4.63 during Dwight Howard’s one season in L.A.
“But the other side of it is what happens if these ratings continue to fall? What is that doing to advertising rates? The Lakers are certainly guaranteed a payment from Time Warner, but to what extent is Time Warner going to be compromised if the ratings continue to drop and they’ve dropped by more than half over a couple of years?”
“As long as the fans believe that the Buss family is doing everything it can to put a winning product on the court, they will allow them some time,” Carter said Tuesday, referring to the team’s owners. “A major injury and maybe some bad bounces, I think fans understand that.
“But if fans believe there is an ongoing issue with draft selections and trades and player personnel overall that results in consistent 25-win seasons or the like, then I think the fans become really concerned.”
Anonymous says
@KO: Show me one success story in Jim’s past and I will shut up!
—
Jim has successfully cratered the Lakers — one of the most storied franchises in American sports history.
Justin says
@KO well NBC was the leader through the 90s in tv ratings. They have since had presidents that last around 4 years. Every new president hasn’t changed a thing in ratings (again because the top guy doesn’t matter as much as people think. You have hundreds of employees and they all matter.) But again Jim should be judged on a 5 year deal. No one builds it in less time (most never get there but that is besides the point).
Now the family feuding is a real point. Don’t know the facts but I also don’t know where it hurts them. It isn’t like they are fighting over which players to get. Seems more of a PR nightmare than a real basketball problem. Only the Phil not hiring could even be seen as a family feud thing (and the article doesn’t believe it was). Besides Phil wouldn’t have coached more than a two or three years at most. His health was horrible overtime he coached. So all we do is start rebuilding this year instead. Would a few years of low level playoffs really make you happy. Better to rip the band-aid off fast than do it later.
kO says
Justin decent points.
Except
Falling to the worst record in Laker history while having the largest team TV deal, 2nd highest seat prices and parking prices is not a band aid but more like they are cutting our fingers off one at a time while counting the money.
Robert says
Justin: When evaluating Jim, can we at least be consistent in our timeframes? You are giving Jim credit for Pau and championships and then saying he needs at least 5 eyars. If you count the Pau trade – that occurred in 2008 so that is 7 years. We can all have opinions but let’s be consistent. In my case I think Jim has been the top guy since the 2012 season and that is 4 years. If you want to start literally from the day Jerry died (RIP) then Jim has been in charge for 2 1/2 years but that only make his win percentage way worse. Jim deserves some credit for his contributions, but like I have said before – being the top decision maker is different – just like Kurt Rambis’ rings as a bench coach do not qualify him as our head coach. So I do not care what Jim did as a member of the FO, I care about what he as done as our top guy and it has been a disaster. I do somewhat agree with your comments about firing people too quickly and the lack of continuity. That said – the most important thing the FO does is select coaches – and that has been another disaster.
drrayeye says
It’s not just Jimmy. It’s deeper. It’s been the gradual erosion of planning–an incomplete team at the management level failing to note the changing times. The more eccentric approaches of mavericks are of an earlier era. When one makes decisions, it’s always have a plan B, and a plan C. I’m not even convinced that the organization has a plan A. Management has become professionalized, and the Lakers are behind the curve.
Look at what’s happening to the professionalized Dodgers right now . . .
rr says
Justin,
This line proves my point perfectly:
“Nope only hurts fans egos.”
In making that list, I was not considering/thinking about fans at all. That is all coming from you and your intense defensiveness about the FO. Chasing Anthony and Aldridge was very questionable simply for, you know, basketball reasons. These are two guys 30 and over, commanding max or near-max deals, who are not Shaq/LeBron type franchise cornerstones. So even if the Lakers had gotten one of them, it would have been very questionable whether it was a good move. The kinds of FAs the Lakers should be looking at right are the kinds of guys Joel mentions.
As to Nance Jr., I don’t think you understand the meaning of “questionable.” It doesn’t mean the FO blew the pick; it just means that there are reasons to question the decision. Nance was 40-50 on most draft boards, and Looney, Hunter, and Hernangomez, among others, were on the board when the Lakers took Nance. And the Spurs comp just makes it look worse. Nance might be the kind of guy that you take when you have a strong roster. The Lakers don’t.
But, maybe the FO was ahead of the curve and nailed the Nance pick. They are going to need to be.
Finally, there is no need to hit the salary floor.
Robert says
Darius: With regard to process, I just don’t see it. Let’s forget results and just look at process. Do you think the FO handled the Mike Brown hiring and non-hiring of Shaw in a professional manner? Was the Phil- MD thing handled in a smooth manner? How about the 4 interview – 4 month Byron Scott hiring? Again – forget the result – I am talking about process. How about the handling of DH? Did we install an offense he liked? A coach? The Billboards? The Kobe relationship? Were any of those handled via an efficient process? What about the handling of Pau and his confidence? A good process when an All NBA player fell off the map, only to regain All NBA form elsewhere? How bout the process around players like Antawn? Kaman? How bout the process around Kobe’s extension (signing him to an unprecedented amount – when he was still injured)? The injuries are bad luck, but this is all self inflicted. Further, who here is saying this is “ALL” Jim’s fault. I am the hardest on the FO and I do not even say that. What I do say is he is not the right guy for our top job and the results and the process both support that view. You do not like Byron. Do you think everything is his fault? Do you realize that Byron had his best player injured almost all of last year (context)? You realize he has been coaching for 15 years in the NBA, has been coach of the year, and has been to the Finals twice. He has done a few things right. He probably also has some good coaching “processes”. That said – I like Byron, but he is probably not what we need to win another title. And neither is Jim. Perhaps we can make a deal and have them both go (I will throw in a 2nd round pick). Personal preferences are fine. I certainly have mine. We all have them. One preference is not more intellectually correct than another – they are simply preferences.
Craig W. says
rr,
You are going to pay a minimum amount. If you fail to reach this ‘floor’ you will pay the difference, proportionally, to all your players. The Lakers simply elected to pay the difference to Kobe. IMO – given his service and the business dollars he brings in, this was a very good decision.
Berdj J. Rassam says
The litany of drama and dysfunction ever since Dr. Buss’ passing continues with the Lakers to this day.
rr says
You are going to pay a minimum amount. If you fail to reach this ‘floor’ you will pay the difference, proportionally, to all your players.
—
Yes, I know how it works. As I have said any number of times, the biggest problem with Kobe’s deal was making it two years at that money, and then the FO compounded that by trying to chase max FAs when they didn’t have the roster infrastructure to sell to one veteran max FA. So, their best shot to reach Jim Buss’s publicly stated goal of signing two max FAs was and is incompatible with Kobe’s current deal.
Also, a team does not have to hit the floor until the last day of the regular season, so starting off below the floor can actually be used tactically.
Mid-Wilshire says
For those who are interested, here’s a great article on Jordan Clarkson. Enjoy:
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/25250379/lakers-jordan-clarkson-looks-to-exceed-expectations-after-impressive-rookie-season
Anon says
Rr – you are awesome. But you are also misguided in complaining that a few bloggers or posters being what you call “pro FO” somehow drowns out the guys with the local and national radio shows gunning for the FO.
Personally, I think a few guys like Ko and Robert have so much vested in the “hate” that they seem to advocate or wish for failure just so that they can be proven “right” on their position on Jim Buss. You don’t strike me as that way yet, but recent comments have me wondering if that assumption remains true.
As others have said here before, you all better hope that Jim Buss has the capacity and the plan to turn this thing around – because that is the fastest way for this ship to right itself. Firing Jim or having him resign means new leadership, likely unproven, who will need time to mold the Laker FO into whatever vision of the future they have by making moves, including drafting players, trading contracts and making signings to their liking . In essence, firing Jim would likely add 5-6 years (from the date of the firing) to the championship hunt.
I for one will continue hoping you naysayers are proven wrong, not because I want to be right or because I think Jim and Mitch are infallible, but because I think and hope that they can turn things around quicker than brining in a new FO team. If that makes me an apologist, so be it.
Justin says
@rr, If you don’t hit the floor you know what everyone (fans, media, agents, and players) will say. That the Lakers are cheap and that their dad always paid. Completely disagree with you about getting a 30 year old vet. First, people would talk about the Lakers were still a destination despite being a bottom team. In builds confidence from around the league. And that makes other FA more likely. Say you get only one of the Melo or LMA. Lakers then get the 8th seed. Suddenly Kobe comes off the books and Durant and Horford decide to come because they are close, they can come as a pair, and they become the next generation. Maybe they don’t, but getting the vet gives you a real chance. If you build through the draft you are looking at a 7 year rebuild at minimum if everything goes your way. Fans don’t like tis idea because they think that they can build a young team that contends for 8 plus years. Fans don’t realize the new rules make this near impossible because of how the money works (repeater tax, constant contracts coming up because they are only 3-4 year deals, etc). Unless you can do what the Spurs do and trick half the team into taking pay cuts you are losing key members in your runs. No one seems to understand that if you lose a Fisher or Danny Green that your chance of contending the next year become much much more difficult. IT takes time to gel and very hard to replace good players in a near capped out team. The new rules are only really starting to kick in. Once they get fully going teams will have a contender life of 3-4 years if they do everything right. And that’s also what the Lakers are banking on. Good players will be available every year.
And I have no problem with the guys that Joel mentioned. But if you think a guy like Barnes can play in any system or with any players around him you don’t understand fit. There was a reason a guy like Danny Green sucked on the Cavs and was great with the Spurs. Heck D’Antoni is a good example. Nash was light years better under his system. So was Lin, Melo (his only MVP type year), Nick Young, etc. But guys like Pau were much worse. Again you need to know your team, system, and stars before you fill in the gaps.
Again if you pay attention to your fans you will never win anything. Fans do not know more about basketball than the scouts, coaches, and FO of any team. The Kings are the perfect example of doing what the fans ask for. Viveck is known to making moves (see Vlade) that he thinks will appease the fans. You don’t publicly want to tell the fans you don’t care, but privately you need to. If it were up to fans, they would have tell you to lose every game next year to keep your pick. They would then proceed to complain about how you are the biggest loser in Lakers history. Fans would complain that you bottomed out to get a draft pick and that you need to win right now but also somehow lose every game to again keep your pick. Fans don’t have a coherent message because there are literally millions of fans saying different things. You have one group that hates the Kobe getting $25 million a year, but another group would complain about watching a bunch of kids with no draw because they were disloyal to Kobe who brought them 5 championships. See the problem is you think everyone is on board with your plan. You think they move as one fan base. They don’t and never do. Jim shouldn’t pick your side or the side opposed to you. Jim should do what he thinks is best and after 5 years should be evaluated.
By the way I defend Jim because people act like all his moves were wrong. The truth is that he has made some bad moves and some great moves (or really the people that work with him because again he only has the last say not that whole voice). Jim is not worse than 20 other GMs (we can literally go through every GM and you will find plenty of misses with all of them). Lakers had two 20 win teams under his watch (of course we ignore the success of championship teams and playoff teams he has had). Danny Angie who only won one title has more than 5 years of sub 30 win teams. Rockets GM had multiple years of 20-35 win teams. What GM do you think never has had high lottery picks over multiple years (again except for the Spurs). Jim gets crucified for basically not being the best GM in NBA history (or top 5).
In five years if Randle is a playmaking four with good lateral quickness who guards the PNR well and scores, rebounds, and makes passes, If Clarkson becomes a scorer and playmaker that moves positions when you need him, If Russell is an all world Steve Nash/Steph Curry hybrid, Upshaw gets his life together and becomes a defensive force, and the Lakers get a top FA or two. Will you care that they had two 20 win teams? or that they chased LMA, Melo, Durant, etc. Or that they paid Kobe $48 million. Of course not. And you know what I bet Mitch gets all the credit. Nothing matters but what the results are after 5 years when the rebuild is over and they are contenders (or starting over if Jim failed). And in 5 years if the team isn’t good I will say that it is time for him to go (and Mitch). But not before he is given a real chance.
Brendan says
I got into a Twitter debate with Matian about his article. My main point was that, at a certain point, everyone has to be accountable for the decisions that they make (i.e., the results). So while Jim Buss obviously shouldn’t have to step down simply because the Lakers had two bad seasons, he still has to take responsibility for the decisions that didn’t pan out. After engaging in this mild debate (especially by Twitter standards), Matian blocked me, hiding our tweets and replies from his page, which I thought was pretty weak.
And while I agree with Darius that process is also important, I think strong arguments could be made that the process in many respects, as rr and others have pointed out, has been pretty flawed over the past couple of years.
Anonymous says
I see a certain irony in rr’s post because he is probably the one poster who uses ad hominem arguments more consistently than anyone else around here.
While it is possible to criticize the FO for a number of things I just don’t see how the people who are the most vocal about Jim Buss can really know what exactly his impact on the organization actually is. In that respect Myles raises a very valid point. Discussions about Jim Buss go far beyond what can be called rational.
rr says
I see a certain irony in rr’s post because he is probably the one poster who uses ad hominem arguments more consistently than anyone else around here
—
Heh. I can certainly get a little testy, but you don’t actually know what ad hominem means if you think that. Basically, I push back against the kind of stuff you are saying in the next paragraph–baseless, unsupported posturing to the effect that criticism of the FO is irrational, silly, etc. If you have some specific examples of what you see as irrational criticism of the FO, bring them.
Also, you have called me out a few times like this now, so like I have said before, you should probably pick a handle. Doesn’t cost anything, and it will make your posts that much more memorable. Finally, in terms of netiquette, if you are going to call someone out by name for what you see as objectionable behavior, I think it is generally a good idea to stand behind that by identifying yourself in the sense of what that means on a free site with no reg.
rr says
just don’t see how the people who are the most vocal about Jim Buss can really know what exactly his impact on the organization actually is.
—
He is the highest-ranking basketball official in the organization, has said publicly that the team getting back in contention is on him, as has his sister, and the team has lost 116 games in two years. So, it really doesn’t matter exactly who is saying what to whom at the table when decisions are made. Jim Buss is the boss.
Also, for the record, I and others use the terms FO and Jim Buss FO and many of us have said that if things don’t work out, Mitch will probably be gone too.
rr says
Brendan,
Interesting. Matian is an attorney, so he presumably enjoys argument, but apparently not on this topic in that format. The article was pretty confrontational in some respects, since it pretty much directly stated that people bagging on Jim Buss are being guided by emotions rather than reason, and it was very much an advocacy approach, since Matian presented the information in a way clearly designed to take as much heat off Jim as possible.
Basically, while the situation is very complex, I think what people think of the FO can be boiled down to two questions:
1. Do you think that a) Jim Buss should step down now, or do you think that b) he and Mitch Kupchak should be given 2-3 more years to turn the team around?
2. Ramona Shelburne writing in May 2011 after Phil Jackson left, wrote that while Dr. Buss still had veto powers, said that “Jim Buss is engineering this train now.” Using either that or the end of Dr. Buss’ life as the start date, on a scale of 1-10, how do you rate the performance of the Lakers’ FO during that period? 10=excellent and 1=poor.
rr says
So how long should the FO get a pass beccause of The Veto?
—
I certainly don’t see it as a get-out-of-jail free card, but:
1. Paul is a great player. People point to the early playoff exits, and Paul may never win a title. But he is a perennial All-Star and a guy other guys want to play with.
2. Paul is one of the few guys with the edginess/gravitas to call Kobe off the ball and take over, and I think he would have done that when needed.
3. If the FO had gotten Howard after getting Paul, I think Howard would have stayed here, and a Lakers team anchored by Paul and Howard would have been a huge FA draw in terms of adding ring-chasing role players.
A few people have quoted Pelton in this thread, and in writing about the Veto a couple of years ago, Pelton said that it “changed the entire landscape of the Western Conference.” I think that is accurate.
minorthreatt says
I love the back and forth here and I agree with parts of both the pro- and anti-Jim factions, but there’s one thing rr has brought up consistently that I agree with. Whether Jim really did defer to Dr. Buss’s wishes on the MDA hire — and I’ll take him at his word that he did — I still think it would be a good thing for him to own.
I’m not sure how much having Phil back would have made a difference; he couldn’t have made Nash healthier, and his GM time thus far reminds us that when given power, he doesn’t always make the right decisions, either. However, perception-wise, I think that move, more than any other, defines how people feel about Jim, rightly or wrongly. Had he taken credit — or blame — himself, I think people’s respect for him would have risen, at least a little. I’d rather have had him do this than make his now-infamous promise, as a way of proving accountability.
Lurker's Comp says
Smoove move by FB&G to throw out this sticky mouse trap with Jim Buss in the title so the boring Front Office debate can continue endlessly without contaminating other threads. It’s a scroll-by paradise.
teamn says
Perhaps this is a cop out, but I am sort of in the middle with the FO, trending negative. I think a lot of the first few decisions were somewhat defensible, given this franchise’s history, but it reflected both an inability or unwillingness to adjust to reality of the CBA and an aging core. All that aside, though I am much more concerned now with two things: the infighting, which I think has a real chance of pulling apart the franchise for years and in ways we cannot fully see, and the decision to chase what to me are the wrong FAs.
rr summarized my view nicely on why Anthony and Aldridge were not the guys to chase. I do acknowledge, however, the very real pressure that exists from having Kobe in the picture. Not anything bad about Kobe, but the desire to send him out with a contending team. That, along with Jim’s timelines, have, I would argue, kept the FO from fully embracing a multi-year re-build strategy reflected in a different coaching hire and FO targets. I think this would also help to create a consistent message for external and internal audiences.
I think the walk up the learning curve has actually been steeper than the Buss kids expected and, along with the lingering resentments of the Phil Jackson era, have contributed to a number of decisions that taken together have created at least the impression of flailing, if not failure. That can only be reversed by consistent, clear, unified communication and direction across the board. So, Jeannie and Jim need to get it together.
PurpleBlood says
Joel,
Your post listing alternatives to KD, and your views on each player, who´ll be available in `016 is very good, thanks.
___
` but you don’t actually know what ad hominem means if you think that. ´
_
If Anon. indeed misused, or misunderstood its meaning, it´s fair to point out that, yes, it does have its `positive´ definition when used in the following vein: ¨…when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact.¨
PurpleBlood says
Lurker´s,
`Smoove´ as in J.B. Smoove?
Craig W. says
Justin makes the best, and most complete, argument for not being an extremist about Jim Buss. It makes no sense to expand on what he says, so I will just say I agree with him.
minorthreatt, I don’t agree with your comment about Jim owning his failures giving him more respect, however. We have an excellent example why this is so, simply by looking at Kobe’s career and people’s reaction to it. Kobe came along as Jordan’s career was peaking and he was vilified because he ‘dared’ to attempt to surpass it and ‘owned’ who he was. This has never resulted in any kind of universal respect – Kobe has always been a touchstone for controversy. The media found a time to thoroughly turn on him and has never reversed this course – by and large. The general public split into two camps – those who followed the media and ‘hated’ Kobe and those who resisted the media and ‘loved’ Kobe. Hence we have continuing boos throughout every arena in the NBA, while great numbers also wear his Laker jersey.
Like Kobe, I simply can’t see Jim Buss ever being given credit for things he does right by a segment of Laker fans. That’s why I don’t agree with you minorthreatt.
PurpleBlood says
Mid,
Thanks for the link to the article on Clarkson – the following excerpt jumped out at me immediately:
We spent a lot of time in the gym experimenting,” Fuller said. “[I’d say,] ‘Hey, try this, try that. Hey, I’m going to lob it off the backboard, I want you to go up, catch it, 360 and put it off the backboard soft. I want you to dribble full court, suicide 3s — how many can you make in a minute?’ Just literally trying to break through his threshold to see what was going to get him to the point where he said, ‘Man, I can’t take it anymore.’ Nothing ever did that.”
___
Man, oh man, now whose relentless drive and determination does that remind you of?!! 🙂
Anonymous says
Heh. I can certainly get a little testy, but you don’t actually know what ad hominem means if you think that. Basically, I push back against the kind of stuff you are saying in the next paragraph–baseless, unsupported posturing to the effect that criticism of the FO is irrational, silly, etc. If you have some specific examples of what you see as irrational criticism of the FO, bring them.
______________
Um, didn’t I actually say that it is okay to criticize the FO? Criticism of Jim Buss does tend to lean toward the irrational, though, because people blame all sorts of stuff on him without having sufficient information.
________________
Also, you have called me out a few times like this now, so like I have said before, you should probably pick a handle. Doesn’t cost anything, and it will make your posts that much more memorable. Finally, in terms of netiquette, if you are going to call someone out by name for what you see as objectionable behavior, I think it is generally a good idea to stand behind that by identifying yourself in the sense of what that means on a free site with no reg.
__________
Please call me Anonymous. 😛 If people have a tendency to construct narratives around other posters this may actually help keep the focus on the content of the post at hand without getting distracted by those narratives. Besides, as long as the site allows anonymous posts no one is in a position to impose his own expectations on other posters (especially those who don’t post regularly).
As for calling you out, I don’t know what posts you are referring to. I have made a very similar post about Jim Buss recently which was meant as a reply to a number of different posters. The only other thing that I recall posting recently was about Jeanie. And it was actually critical of her, so I don’t think that would fit into any “FO apologist” narrative.
Anonymous says
He is the highest-ranking basketball official in the organization, has said publicly that the team getting back in contention is on him, as has his sister, and the team has lost 116 games in two years. So, it really doesn’t matter exactly who is saying what to whom at the table when decisions are made. Jim Buss is the boss.
Also, for the record, I and others use the terms FO and Jim Buss FO and many of us have said that if things don’t work out, Mitch will probably be gone too.
________
By that same logic Mitch should have been fired a decade ago. And people were actually calling for his head back then. Whether that would have been better for the Lakers is highly questionable and speculative, though.
I think the statistical record suggests that more often than not personnel changes don’t turn things around if an organization sucks. It’s a conventional response to problems but that doesn’t necessarily make it an intelligent response. Whether or not it’s the smart thing to do depends on the individual situation and on information that goes way beyond what you or I know. If it’s just a conventional reaction it’s very unlikely to turn things around. And even if you accept Jim’s timeline he still has two more years.
Vasheed says
@Criag W,
About Kobe’s salary, I don’t think the Lakers have had a year where they were close to the floor. They have filled their salary cap up pretty much every year. They have not exceeded this in a while to go into luxury paying status but they haven’t been penny pinching either. How those dollars were spent is another question but there was no danger of the Lakers not meeting the floor.
@rr,I respect your opnion as I believe you’ve been fairly consistent. However, I do believe for many people it is just jumping on the bandwagon. As said when things go right Mitch is great when things go wrong Jim sucks. I think expectations from Lakers fans are very high. After the great Laker and Celtic teams of the 80s the Lakers became a mediocre team while Boston fell into oblivion. I don’t think Laker fans are used to things getting this bad.
Oldtimer says
I have a different outlook on the ownership situation, they should be revered and preserved like the Royal Family of UK. However, they should desist themselves from managing the much storied franchise. Let the professionals do it while they stay active in the board in goal setting for the GM and managers. This is how City Mayors function, there is an City Administrator, the same with Fortune 500 companies, Management Team is separated from Board of Directors.
Time and again, it proves that the sons and daughters of the legendary founder could not continue the luck and vision set by the founder, it is a DNA gap. If some companies continued success through siblings and children or grandchildren like the Ford, Rothschild, Kennedy’s and so forth that is a minority. Please leave the Lakers alone to the fans and legends.
Mikey says
I think it’s ironic that the FO gets bashed for being antiquated (behind the curve in analytics, overestimating Lakers brand appeal, etc.). But I can’t help thinking that a lot of impatient (2 lottery years isn’t long after the decades of excellence) Lakers fans are equally antiquated. This is a different NBA (salary cap, national exposure for small markets, etc.) than what we or our fathers grew up with.
Mikey says
I don’t think there’s anyone on this board who wants the Lakers to win a championship more than Kobe Bryant. Yet Kobe is on record as completely trusting this FO despite his obsessive drive that demands perfection from others. I say this despite not being the biggest Kobe fan. If this FO is good enough for Kobe, it’s good enough for this Lakers fan.
Darius Soriano says
I think it’s funny that Robert went on a long rant, directed at me, starting with coaching hires when I said, pretty much verbatim, that the way the coaching has been handled is something I do not agree with. I also said I wouldn’t get into the long laundry list of things that have gone wrong and looking to assign blame.
That said, here are the things you mentioned: “How about the handling of DH? Did we install an offense he liked? A coach? The Billboards? The Kobe relationship? Were any of those handled via an efficient process? What about the handling of Pau and his confidence? A good process when an All NBA player fell off the map, only to regain All NBA form elsewhere? How bout the process around players like Antawn? Kaman? How bout the process around Kobe’s extension (signing him to an unprecedented amount – when he was still injured)? ”
In a quick format, here you go: Dwight and Pau were coached by Mike D’Antoni. The front office may hire coaches, but it is then on the coach to do the job he is hired to do. You don’t like the offense? You think the coach alienated the players? Blame the coach. The billboards were a marketing ploy and were the product of the entire organization — including Jeannie’s side of the house. If you want to blame Jim, Mitch, MDA, Mike Brown, or anyone else for Kobe being an a-hole (something he, himself, readily admits), more power to you, but that’s silly. If the Lakers chose Dwight over Kobe, that would have been their call. They went the other direction. From what I have been told, their relationship was pretty much irreconcilable. The Lakers were trying to trade Pau — in fact, they actually traded him! The fact that the trade was vetoed and Pau had to return to the team under the specter of being traded isn’t really on anyone in the Lakers’ organization. The fact is, the Lakers were probably right to want to trade Pau — and I say this as someone who LOVED Pau and openly stated I wanted him to stay on the team. Regarding Jamison and Kaman, again, you’re talking about coaching. Those players were useful players who all actually performed well statistically when on the floor.
I am not saying none of these things can be questioned, but I am saying, like I said above that most things that lead a team to the point the Lakers are at are multi-faceted and deserve context, not just a one-note explanation where the blame goes to the top guy in charge. Ultimately, as many have pointed out, Jim is the the top ranking official on the basketball ops side, so he does deserve blame. I’d also argue that the Lakers are in the natural down-cycle that occurs when one of the top players in the league becomes no longer one of the top players in the league all while the rest of the core either ages or departs in FA to teams who have a brighter upside.
Last point — it’s easy to question every move that’s gone wrong in hindsight. It’s also easy to question moves before they happen or just complain in general about what the FO is/isn’t doing. It’s much more difficult to actually build a winning team, behind the scenes, under the constrictions of the CBA and dealing with every other team regarding trades, FA, etc. Building a winner is hard. I say it a lot, but it’s true. The fact the Lakers have won a ton in their history shouldn’t influence people to think it’s easier than it is. This is the one thing I never hear the harshest FO critics discuss. It’s actually hard.
Brendan says
rr,
More specifically, Matian is a criminal defense attorney, which makes sense given the tone and narrative of his article. Full disclosure, I am a plaintiff’s attorney, and its very likely that shapes my perspective. My main point to him was that, in my opinion, the front offices’ decisions from 2011 to the present have resulted in more misses than hits. But I told him that what I really didn’t understand is why, when evaluating Jim Buss, does it have to be one extreme or the other? Why can’t there be a middle ground? I think his track record over the past couple of years has been less than stellar. Not great, but also not abysmal. So while fans get dissed for taking the extreme approach in evaluating Jim Buss (i.e., “HE SUCKS!”), why is taking the other extreme (i.e., a complete defense of him) not subject to the same scrutiny? Instead, Matian’s article seemed pretty universally praised in the Lakers blogosphere world (please note, I am note saying Forum Blue and Gold praised it, I understand that the article was linked just to give fans another perspective).
So to answer your question rr, I would give Jim and the Lakers’ front office a 4 out of 10 for their decisions (i.e., trades, free agent signings, coaching hires, etc.) from 2011 – present.
And I agree with you Darius that Lakers’ coaches (i.e., Brown and D’Antoni) primarily deserve the blame for underachieving given the talent that we had from 2011-2013. But the front office shouldn’t get a complete pass, as it was them who chose to hire those coaches. Indeed, with respect to process, strong arguments could be made that those hires really didn’t make sense at the time, and so it shouldn’t be a surprise that they both failed.
I also agree with your perspective, Darius, that the Lakers are simply going through a down cycle, which all franchises do, and that fans are spoiled given the success of the Lakers. But I just don’t think that should absolve Jim and the front office from what I feel were poor decisions made from 2011 to the present.
R says
Darius, sure it’s hard no doubt. The metaphor that often comes to my mind is that it’s like catching lightening in a bottle. It’s very very hard to build a championship contender. That said, it can’t be all that hard to “build” one of the worse teams in the league. Can it?
Darius Soriano says
R,
That second to last sentence is pretty much exactly what I mean by a one-note comment that removes context. Thanks.
R says
rr – I’d say your comments about The Veto are very coherent and make a lot of sense. Regarding Chris Paul, yes he’s a great player and IMO has that truly elite killer instinct that Kobe probably can relate to. Now, in my mind it’s still an open question whether he could have reined in Kobe’s ball dominant instincts. Sadly, we will never know. Incidentally, I think it will be interesting how Paul/the Clips deal with DAJ now that he’s decided he needs the ball (frankly a laughable notion). On, to your third point, that a core of CP3 and Cow … uh Howard, would have been a FA magnet for the Lakers: plausible, and a very good point.
R says
Darius, glad you liked it.
I aim to please.
Mikey says
Sure Lakers have been one of the worst teams in the last two years. But NBA FO’s seem to have adopted the Biblical adage that it’s better to be hot or cold. Worst thing for a franchise is to be mediocre.
rr says
By that same logic Mitch should have been fired a decade ago.
==
Mitch never ran teams as bad as the last two, since as noted many times, the last two teams have been the two worst in franchise history. Mitch of course had prime Kobe and Odom, so that makes it very different, but I would make two points:
1. Mitch was taking a lot of heat when those teams were seen as being stuck in neutral. Now Buss is taking heat; that is the way things work in the NBA. And as Brendan suggests, a faction exists that consistently characterizes that same thing happening to Jim Buss as being unfair, irrational, bizarre, hate-driven, etc. But in the world of the NBA, it isn’t.
2. As I have said a few times, there are two ways to look at Buss’s background. One is that he was mentored by his dad, Jerry West, Mitch, Bill Bertka, etc. The other is that he has the gig only because of who his dad is and he has never played nor coached, nor does he have a college degree of any kind, much less one related to his current responsibilities. Mitch was and is a traditional basketball man, so people will tend to cut him more slack.
Justin says
Regarding the CP3 trade, how long did it take for the Magic to recover from losing Shaq (or Howard)? How long did it take for the Bulls to recover without Jordan, or the Nuggets when they lost Melo, or Jazz when they lost DWill, etc. My point is that it takes every organization a while to recover from losing great players (both CP3 and Dwight). Again I think they (the entire FO) should get a 5 year window (on the rebuild). We just finished year 2. And in those 2 years they got three interesting prospects.
Todd says
Mikey: Sure Lakers have been one of the worst teams in the last two years. But NBA FO’s seem to have adopted the Biblical adage that it’s better to be hot or cold. Worst thing for a franchise is to be mediocre.
__
Well, that’s not entirely true. The FO tried to woo Melo and Aldridge these past two off seasons. Neither one of them were good fits due to their age and cost (max contracts). Additionally, they wouldn’t have moved the needle beyond a 9 – 11 seed, which is pretty mediocre.
So, in my mind the Jim Buss FO was more than willing to enter the NBA’s ‘no man’s land’ in an effort to save face with Jeanie/the fans/sponsors/TWC/etc.
rr says
Anon,
I conceded Myles’ point up top: I don’t listen to talk radio and I do follow the Lakers’ blogosphere, so I am sure there is truth in your statement. However, here, at LakersNation and at SSR, Buss and the FO have plenty of very vocal defenders, and hard-line defenders completely dominate the latter site. In today’s media world, IMO that is not a small thing.
Also, given my high-volume posting, I don’t expect you to remember what I say, but I have said many times that I would much rather root for a good team than gloat over the NBA corpse of Jim Buss. And, even if Buss eventually succeeds, that doesn’t mean he has done a great job up to now or that criticizing the FO now is irrational.
Finally, Robert is a guy I like, but I do not share every opinion with him, and I think that the Buss FO should get some more time, as I have said in this thread. But the team needs to start showing progress. That, I think is what drives the frustration: things do not seem to be getting better.
Parrothead Phil says
I don’t think either side will ever reach an accord on the Jim Buss debate. I fall into the camp of “I don’t know enough regarding inner workings of the Lakers”, but I like the course the team is on now (i.e. trending up). The usual argument to my position is “two worst records in franchise history.”
My response is that the team would have been mediocre to bad for a number of reasons- many of which were unavoidable and many which were avoidable, but the team become historically awful owing to injuries.
The way I see it, the Lakers went all in (player personnel-wise) trying to extend the Championship window after winning in 2010 and continued going all in for the 2011-2012 season. The Lakers fell apart in the Dallas series.
The Lakers had given up almost all their draft picks assembling the Championship winning teams and had been a luxury tax paying team. A new CBA which severely punished luxury tax paying teams was negotiated to start the 2011-2012 season. (Many have said that this CBA specifically targeted the Lakers). The Lakers made one last push by acquiring Nash and Howard. When that move (which was widely considered great) failed, mainly owing to Nash and Kobe’s injuries, the Lakers had to resign themselves to staying under the cap for multiple years in order to be able to rebuild.
The decisions which have bugged me and which I believe are inexplicable are the firing of staff during the lockout (short term money saver which created lasting problems) and the coaching hires. Mike Brown, MDA, and Scott. Mike Brown never showed any real acumen as head coach. I have never liked MDAs system and he was wrong for the roster. I am still undecided on Scott only because he has not had a full roster with which to work and so I am reserving judgement on him until that time.
Mikey says
Advanced analytics I’ve seen suggest that Aldridge is an elite player both offensively and defensively. He’s on the wrong side of 30 but I would guess that his game ages pretty well. In any case, I think the FO tried to lure Aldridge as part of a plan to bring D Cousins or possibly make LA more attractive to FA next year. I hate Melo but he’s been the centerpiece of 50+ win teams in both Denver and NY not too long ago. In fact, I think the more valid criticism of this FO is that they try hit home runs rather than make incremental improvements.
Justin says
@ rr, why do you think it falls on Jim now? Jim and Mitch have been working in the same roles since 2005. If you want to start the time frame at his dad’s death (2011), he has gotten 3 prospects, hasn’t killed the team with cap killing long term contracts (no Kobe’s was not cap killing. They had more than enough space for a max player the last two years), and gave himself a deadline (which no other GM/Owner has the balls to do). The Nash trade you hate is before Jim his dad dies, so then is that on Mitch or the dad?
By the way, you could make an argument that Jeanie has been the bigger problem. The Stay billboards were her, the LMA visit fumbled because she went long and the basketball people didn’t have enough time, the Lakers brand has suffered because she has sold it during a down period (I know a very hard thing to do, but companies take on bigger issues with investors all the time). The CP3 trade veto (she was in charge and if anyone should have taken responsibility it would need to be her. She knew the climate and if anyone needs to put aside sibling rivalries it needs to be the person most in charge). I don’t blame her personally I am just saying you could make the argument.
Justin says
@ Todd, No way Jim is trying to get to the middle to appease Jeanie or the fans. He gave himself a deadline. What good would it do him to get to the middle? He stated he needs to get to the west conference finals to keep his job. His pursuit of LMA and Melo is to be a lure to other FA. Again he clearly believes that if he gets a top their player that they can sell other top tier players. He may be wrong but he believes it enough to put his job on the line for it. Not sure what more a guy has to do than that to earn a shot and some patients.
rr says
Craig,
I see you endorse Justin’s long post. Here is why I don’t:
1. It is mostly based on hypotheticals–if they had Aldridge, then maybe Durant would come here. If Randle and Russell are great, then no one will be able to criticize anymore, etc..
2. Again, we see the heavy, confrontational focus on fan behavior and media as the problem. Fans’ don’t know more than Jim, fans will never give Jim credit, the media would go after the Lakers if they don’t hit the floor, fans would complain if Kobe weren’t here but Jim shouldn’t listen to fans, picking Harrison Barnes off a list of eight guys that I mentioned and saying that ‘you don’t understand fit’ etc.
The thing is, I agree that the FO should get some more time. But I don’t see any problem with giving the FO some scutiny before Justin’s five years expire, and again, I think most people are looking for progress–not demanding an immediate Finals run. The last two years have not involved much progress.
T. Rogers says
Jim doesn’t need an entire treatise written in the comment section on his behalf. He needs his decisions to actually bear some fruit. As long as the team is a bottom feeder management will be taken to task by Lakers fans and media types alike. Randle and Russell can accomplish way more on Jim’s behalf than his personal PR team can.
rr says
Justin,
1. I actually backed the Nash trade with caveats and have not mentioned it at all.
2. Jim’s title is not the same as it was in 2005 and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that his role has increased over that time. His father never held the title that he does now.
And, again: Jim Buss FO. Not Jim Buss.
As to the deadline, you need to look at Jim’s own words:
“I was laying myself on the line by saying, if this doesn’t work in three to four years, if we’re not back on the top — and the definition of top means contending for the Western Conference, contending for a championship — then I will step down because that means I have failed,” he told The Times about the meeting. “I don’t know if you can fire yourself if you own the team … but what I would say is I’d walk away and you guys figure out who’s going to run basketball operations because I obviously couldn’t do the job.
“There’s no question in my mind we will accomplish success. I’m not worried about putting myself on the line.”
The key here is that Jim is a part-owner. Other guys running basketball ops answer to the owner.
rr says
Randle and Russell can accomplish way more on Jim’s behalf than his personal PR team can.
—-
Indeed, as I and others have said. And I hope Russell and Randle are the goods.
Todd says
Justin: By the way, you could make an argument that Jeanie has been the bigger problem.
__
I’m not rr, however, I wanted to jump in on this one.
Jim is the executive vice president of basketball operations of the Los Angeles Lakers. If he has an issue with any aspect of player personnel — recruiting/retention/etc. It’s on him to make sure that his approach is followed. If it’s not buttoned up the way he wants it then it’s his responsibility to make sure it is.
I’m of the mindset that Jim is ‘willy nilly’ about many aspects of running the Lakers. That’s why the Lakers use of analytics, scouting and training/medical analytics are below par. That’s why Jim say’s elite free agents are core to the Lakers turn around yet he relinquishes control of the agenda/content of those critical pitch meetings.
Nature abhors a vacuum. So if Jim isn’t taking the bull by the horns it appears that Jeanie is more than willing to. Is that Jeanie’s fault for filling the void or Jim’s fault for not owning his job?
minorthreatt says
Craig:
I understand the Kobe analogy. Just as Kobe can do no right for some, it’s true that there seems to be a reflexively anti-Jim segment of the fanbase, often focusing on things like his baseball cap, or his scouting comment. (To be fair to Jim, there’s something to it: just look at the draft history of several NBA franchises and you can speculate that a fan off the street could have drafted more successfully.)
However, while some chips were stacked against Jim before he ever took over, I agree with Parrothead Phil: the things that have made the franchise really look bad happened off the court: the lockout firings and the coaching decisions, especially the process of the MDA hire. The firings, especially, made the Lakers look astonishingly petty and cheap. (They’ve probably hurt the on-the-court product, though that’s hard to quantify. I’d rather not argue the MDA case as coach pro or con, but it’s WAY he was hired, rather than his hiring, that really seemed amateurish.)
I think perception is often reality in lots of venues, and pro sports is one of them. I don’t blame Jim for the Veto, or for the Nash gamble, or for Dwight leaving. In each case, there were factors well beyond his control that made seemingly defensible decisions go bad. I don’t think the lockout firings fall under the same heading, though, and while Dr. Buss might have demanded on his deathbed that MDA be hired, I don’t like hearing Jim use that as what sounds like an excuse. It may very well be true — I believe him — but again, perception is reality. It looks like you’re blaming a dead man. Not a good look, and something that has undoubtedly played a role in the negative perception of Jim.
rr says
Besides, as long as the site allows anonymous posts no one is in a position to impose his own expectations on other posters (especially those who don’t post regularly).
—
Of course not. It was a suggestion. But you have called me out before. Even if your handle is not identifiable, your focus, tone, and style are.
rr says
@ rr, why do you think it falls on Jim now?
Short answer: because he said it does.
rr says
It looks like you’re blaming a dead man.
—
Yep–and worse, your dead father, a man many saw as a legend. Jeanie reacted very negatively to it when Jim brought it up when they were being interviewed by Shelburne.
Had MDA been a roaring success, it would be a nice thing: Dr. Buss’s last gift of wisdom to the franchise, etc etc. As it is, it is, as you say, a bad look.
Anonymous says
jim blaming jerry. jeanie blaming jim. they should read the viti quote and look in the mirror.
Ryan says
I’ll never get the Jim Buss hate. If anything, be mad at the 2011 CBA.
rr says
In essence, firing Jim would likely add 5-6 years (from the date of the firing) to the championship hunt.
—–
Perhaps, but there is no way to know and 5-6 years seems like a reach. Continuity is not always a good thing. Ask the Warriors.
But, really, T Rogers nailed it, very succinctly adding to what many of us have said: Russell and Randle, and to a lesser extent, Clarkson, hold the key to the future of the Jim Buss FO. If those guys have it and lead to FAs coming here, most of Jim’s critics will fade away and/or change their/our narratives. If those guys don’t have it, no amount of spin, context, and explanation will save him or, in all likelihood, Mitch.
kareeme says
I think both ‘sides’ have decent arguments. The results have not been pretty, but I think that there are a lot of mitigating factors (injuries, namely, coaching, as well). Tanking is also another one. Two things forced our hand in tanking: 1) The Veto; and 2) the new CBA. I don’t think there is any way around that. I also believe that the Lakers FO with the franchise’s majestic legacy and brand new multi-billion dollar TV deal could not get away with an apparent tanking strategy. I guess I write all of these retreads because I think that they are constitutive of the FO’s publicly stated approach of pursuing top FAs. It may be a real personnel strategy and/or a sales pitch to fans and TWC.
The point is that all we see are their public pronouncements. But there may be more below the surface of the FO’s stated personnel strategies. Once the injuries set in two years ago, I believe the FO didn’t have many options other than tanking to retool. They were waaay above the cap, so the FO’s ability to use trades to acquire talent were severely limited. I believe that they essentially told D’A to tank after injuries; they then hired a coach (Scott) to tank. Other than the mishandling of Mike Brown, I’m not quite sure what alternatives there were for coaching moves… Maybe the could have done it a little better, but so many FOs screw up coaching hirings and firings, especially when teams under perform. Regarding D’A and Scott: Would any coach of a crumbling, aging team stick around too long? Succeed? So does it come down to the FO not promoting a “good look”?
Maybe I’m in the FO defenders category. I agree that the Kobe deal was too long (should have been more like the Wade deal this year), but I understand the possible thinking of the FO. Nick Young should have been given a shorter deal. Otherwise, I’m not sure what’s a poor choice or the only choice. Hard to tell from our perspective.
Justin says
@ rr
1. Sorry, I swore it was you I argued with about the Nash trade before (and why it was a great move that blew up in their face). That is entirely on me, but I was going back to see who I argued with. As for the hypotheticals, yes because it has to be. We can only guess what Randle, Clarkson, and Russell will be. As for LMA/Melo, I was answering why the Lakers were targeting them. Yes we will never know because Jim won’t say this is why I did it and this is what I believe. But I base my thoughts on the fear that other GMs seem to have about the Lakers and cap space. And I don’t think it is really a reach to realize that Durant (and if that fails) Westbrook are the Lakers real goals. Sort of that level player the Lakers are in for a long rebuild, which Jim clearly can’t do on his timetable. By the way I would be ok with the criticism if it wasn’t so aggressive. I have said he didn’t do an above average job. But people are screaming for him to get fired and trying to put him in the bottom of the NBAs GMs. And he certainly isn’t in the Khan level.
2. I defend the guy to point out he has done a decent job. I just sound like a bigger backer because people act like he is a total failure. I do believe most GMs could have picked Randle and Russell. I don’t think all GMs could find Clarkson (or they would have drafted him). I do think most could save money and get the likes of Young, Hibbert, and Lou.
Craig W. says
Actually, I don’t see any extreme front office defenders on this blog. I see people who appear to be front office defenders only by comparison with the ‘tar & feather and ride him out of town on a rail’ crowd. I am specifically not including ‘rr’ in this group.
Most agree the biggest errors directly attributable to the front office are the coaching hires – and I am one who was not in favor of rehiring Phil Jackson, because I felt he would only finish out the year. He might have done the front office the ‘favor’ of coaching the remainder of the year, but he clearly didn’t want to coach himself anymore – health and travel tiredness.
I think recent drafting has has been well above average and Mitch is still able to handle trades to fit Laker needs.
That leaves only free-agency and handling PR. The biggest error in dealing with free-agency was the perception put out by the front office. Success in the free-agent market is the hardest thing to deliver. Their grade here is certainly below average, but also the Laker franchise is held to a higher standard than practically any other club.
Anonymous says
Of course not. It was a suggestion. But you have called me out before. Even if your handle is not identifiable, your focus, tone, and style are.
_________
I think it’s almost certain that you confuse me with someone else. And I think there is a valuable lesson for you in that.
rr says
I think it’s almost certain that you confuse me with someone else.
—
Unless there are two posters going by Anonymous who write the same way and have said very negative, presumptuous stuff about me, then, no, I don’t think so. As to lessons, take the focus off me and try looking in a different place: the mirror. If you are going to call people out, you can stand behind it a bit without compromising your actual anonymity by choosing a random handle. And that would eliminate any confusion.
Darius Soriano says
Haha! Getting testy, aren’t we gentlemen? As an aside, via ip addresses, I can confirm that the person rr is accusing of saying stuff about him is not the other “anonymous” who has exchanged comments with him in the past. Just thought I’d note that so everyone is on the same page. Haha.
Myles Duve says
Case solved. Allow the Anonymous-es to comment in peace, everybody. I love all of your passion and hope you enjoy Thursday’s links!