Do you think the Lakers learned the lesson in 00-03?

Patterns · Post #1 » by **Patterns** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:02 am

When the Lakers won the 2000 championship, they had plenty of talent on the team. Then 2001 came with a little less talent Kobe showed that he was a superstar. 2002 had even less talent than 2001 but we got lucky. Then 2003, we had Kobe/Shaq and garbage and we lost to the Spurs.

The Lakers thought Kobe/Shaq could get it done with garbage everytime so they never really tried to improve the team throughout the 3 peat.

Do you think that the Lakers front office has learned that they must try to improve the team in the offseason even with a championship?

slifersd · Post #2 » by **slifersd** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:08 am

I think the Lakers won't repeat what happened in 00-03 this time around. Part of it is because the competitive landscape in the league is different now. Back then, the main contenders were all being very cap conscious. The Spurs didn't really add much more talen on their roster except for getting lucky with drafting Ginobili. The same could be said about the Kings. Nowadays, with virtually half the league trying to load up on as much talent as possible, the Lakers have to respond by adding more talent as well. You can't expect the same group of guys with no bench to beat the trio of Wade, LBJ and Bosh with a strong bench.

Magicontinues · Post #3 » by **Magicontinues** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:14 am

Patterns wrote:When the Lakers won the 2000 championship, they had plenty of talent on the team. Then 2001 came with a little less talent Kobe showed that he was a superstar. 2002 had even less talent than 2001 but we got lucky. Then 2003, we had Kobe/Shaq and garbage and we lost to the Spurs.

The Lakers thought Kobe/Shaq could get it done with garbage everytime so they never really tried to improve the team throughout the 3 peat.

Do you think that the Lakers front office has learned that they must try to improve the team in the offseason even with a championship?

Seems to have worked out Ok, and if you remember, not many moves could be made as nobody wants to give the Lakers help, it is hard to make trades that others know are just going to make us stronger, We did bring in free agents that we thought would help at times, just as we have done this run. I'd say they are doing a great job, and will sign those that are needed to go with our core group.

chefy · Post #4 » by **chefy** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:19 am

we have to wait it out man...let's see if mitch would bring in new reinforcements to strengthen the bench and the 1 spot. I thought 03 would happen to us this playoffs, good thing our veteran players stepped up.

Mamba Venom · Post #5 » by **Mamba Venom** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:02 am

Lakers need to:

1) Get Phil to come back
2) Get a PG (Hinirch for Sasha pick and filler) and resign Fish for PG depth
3) Add depth at center... ie Shaq see sig

Say what you want about Shaq having a 3 year injury prone. The difference is Shaq was always healthy for the play-offs.

One last hoorah w/ both dynasties together. Let Horry be the shooting coach.

KingLakers · Post #6 » by **KingLakers** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:05 am

The 2001 Lakers team was more talented than the 2000 team. Remember we were very deep at guard with Harper, Kobe, Fisher, Shaw, and Lue and that was FIsher at his best. We had Grant, Horry, and Madsen at PF. Shaq and Foster at C. Our Weakest spot was SF with just Fox and George.

KingLakers · Post #7 » by **KingLakers** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:11 am

I would say that the Core of today with Kobe, Artest, Pau, Bynum, and Lamar is better than the core of Shaq, Kobe, Fox, Horry, and Fisher were. I not saying there gonna 3 peat but todays core is certainly much more talented than the 2000-2003 core.

ChampagnePapa · Post #8 » by **ChampagnePapa** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:46 am

Shaq was flat out ridiculous in the early 2000s. His finals numbers vs. Indiana were unreal. Our role players were a perfect fit for our offense. 2003, the spurs flat out outplayed the Lakers. In 2004, the Lakers tried to pick up some different options in Malone/Payton but Malone was hurt at the perfectly wrong time for the lakeshow to run into the buzzsaw that was Detroit's D with a player that did well against kobe in prince and a team D that limited anyone beyond shaq to get going. Medvedenko was a starter by force, bad timing and vs a monster team. The Lakers didnt get beat by lack of talent, they got beat by two great teams in the 2003 spurs and the 2004 pistons.

But I agree with the stance that keeping the roster intact as is may be "if you're not moving forward you're falling behind" type scenario but as it stands, the lakers are clearly a top team and until this "super" team is established through FA, I still don't see anyone better. And the super team will have zero bench IF it even comes together for bosh/lebron/wade or bosh/lebron/rose...and there is only 1 ball vs. 3 egos...i'm not saying they are goign to be a bad team, but this isn't NBA 2K or NBA Live, bench, chemistry and egos DO matter...the lakers fell apart at the hands of the Kobe/Shaq feud.

djericho · Post #9 » by **djericho** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:52 am

Even Phil stated it... It's hard to threepeat... theres alot of wear and tear on a player/team for the regular season/playoffs... especially going deep 3+ years in a row. part of it was Shaq/Kobe feud, Shaq coming into the season out of shape, the whole " I got injured on company time, I'm gonna heal on company time", and the aging of the players (fox, shaw, etc)

I think even the expectations for this upcoming NBA season, Lakers would have a hard time since they went to the finals in 08. and if you include Kobe and Gasol's olympic time and gasol playing for the spanish team last year (which hampered him @ the beginning of the season) that's alot of basketball. I'm a Laker fan through and through, always hope for the best, but prepare for the worst tho... Glad they got the two titles, hope for the 3peat, but I don't think there's any need for lesson learned....

jc23 · Post #10 » by **jc23** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 7:30 am

Lakers are easily the favorites for next season out of the west and to win it all as it stands right now (gota see what happens w/these FA's).

I only see the Blazers and the Thunder as the teams that will be improved from this year to next. And both of those teams are still too young to win it all.

SportsAreaBLVD · Post #11 » by **SportsAreaBLVD** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:02 am

difference is now that the lakers are still by far the best team in the western conference. back then the kings were more talented than the lakers, and the spurs always seemed to cause the lakers problems. the lakers just need a couple more bench players like a sg/sf and a real backup center. and to make sure they resign their point guards of course.

laduane1 · Post #12 » by **laduane1** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:32 am

Sign shaq, that way even if the Lakers win another title, he can not pass Kobe in rings....

Gek · Post #13 » by **Gek** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 2:16 am

I do not see Shaq ever signing for a vet min salary. I feel like Kobe would be offended b/c you know Shaq would be all like, "I'M BACK LA! I BROUGHT YOU ANOTHER RING" - and Kobe would be like "SHAQ, SIT YOU FAT ASS DOWN, YOU DIDN'T DO ****!"

LAKESHOW · Post #14 » by **LAKESHOW** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:27 am

lessons learned . . .

unless david robinson and tim duncan walk thru the door and play us again.

there does "seem" to be a better cohesiveness and chemistry on this team.