ImageImageImageImageImage

A Study in Bad Management

Moderators: Kilroy, Danny Darko, TyCobb

MensRea
Banned User
Posts: 167
And1: 4
Joined: Nov 09, 2012

A Study in Bad Management 

Post#1 » by MensRea » Wed Dec 5, 2012 6:15 am

"People are going to say whatever they want to say, but at the end of the day, go back and look at the game, the reason we lost was not my free throws. That didn't lose us the game. Our defense was not there in the fourth quarter."

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=400277976

This team, that was so elegantly put together, that was supposed to dominate with a mixture of elite perimeter and post play, with improved defense...is headed in the wrong direction. It is so obvious that this job is too big for Dantoni. He doesn't fit the strengths of this team, and what's worse, he's too stubborn or incapable of adjusting his system to the players we have. It's only a matter of time before it all crumbles. Nash won't fix anything, his strengths don't match what we need to fix.

Everything was set up for us, and whoever is really calling the shots, WHOEVER THAT IS, ruined it, because they had a wet dream about Dantoni and Nash, and lost sight of, or had no clue to begin with, why we used to win. What could have been a truly special era for Laker basketball has been forever tainted. I don't like the direction this organization is headed. I wonder what this team will look like two years from now. I shudder at the thought.

The Lakers front office blew it. :nonono:
User avatar
DEEP3CL
RealGM
Posts: 27,899
And1: 3,207
Joined: Jul 23, 2005
Location: LOS ANGELES,CA.
     

Re: A Study in Bad Management 

Post#2 » by DEEP3CL » Wed Dec 5, 2012 6:23 am

Man we're all frustrated and you're certainly entitled to your thoughts and opinions, but I'm not ready to dig that deep yet on why s**t is F'd up right now. Everything that happened had a separate reasoning for happening.
VETERAN LAKERS FAN

SmartWentCrazy wrote:It's extremely unlikely that they end up in the top 3.They're probably better off trying to win and giving Philly the 8th pick than tanking and giving them the 4th.
MensRea
Banned User
Posts: 167
And1: 4
Joined: Nov 09, 2012

Re: A Study in Bad Management 

Post#3 » by MensRea » Wed Dec 5, 2012 6:29 am

DEEP3CL wrote:Man we're all frustrated and you're certainly entitled to your thoughts and opinions, but I'm not ready to dig that deep yet on why s**t is F'd up right now. Everything that happened had a separate reasoning for happening.


You're right, but for me, this is frustration that has built over two years. It started with Jim Buss's irrational need to purge the Lakers Organization of any remnants of a system that won us 5 championships in 11 years, only to replace it with Mike Brown over far more qualified candidates (Adleman, Shaw, my Toaster). It reached an APEX when Phil Jackson was turned down in favor of Dantoni, and having watched this team for the last 10 games, its more and more obvious that we are not suited for a fast paced style (if that wasn't already painfully obvious before). We tire late in games, blow big leads, can't play defense...but at least the offense is exciting for three quarters.

This is a long time coming from me. I assure you, this is no knee jerk reaction.
User avatar
CelticsRise
Senior
Posts: 612
And1: 9
Joined: Jul 23, 2012

Re: A Study in Bad Management 

Post#4 » by CelticsRise » Wed Dec 5, 2012 6:34 am

One thing for sure if Phil was here he would not have let Dwight stay in the game for Hack a Dwight. Also, he would have certainly drawn many more plays for Dwight.
User avatar
Jajwanda
General Manager
Posts: 8,611
And1: 105
Joined: Jun 01, 2007

Re: A Study in Bad Management 

Post#5 » by Jajwanda » Wed Dec 5, 2012 6:36 am

The solution is there but it will require Nash and it's frustrating to wait on the guy but really there's a lot of good things going on frustrated by one injury.

As for the rest of the problems defense, leads and fatigue, the problem is the team is playing it's best players for too many minutes. They are gassed. If you want to play an older team at a high-pace the minutes have to be reduced.

Good management:

PG- Nash (28 minutes), Duhon (20 minutes)
SG- Bryant (32 minutes), Meeks (16 minutes)
SF- MWP (30 minutes), Ebanks (18 minutes)
PF- Jamison (28 minutes), Clark (20 minutes)
C- Howard (30 minutes), Gasol (18 minutes)

Bump up the intensity, but use your bench players more to make up for it. As long as your role players have offensive producers on the floor at all times (Kobe/Nash plus Gasol/Howard) you are fine.
User avatar
DEEP3CL
RealGM
Posts: 27,899
And1: 3,207
Joined: Jul 23, 2005
Location: LOS ANGELES,CA.
     

Re: A Study in Bad Management 

Post#6 » by DEEP3CL » Wed Dec 5, 2012 6:44 am

I believe you man, I for one was never a lover of this face pace game.
VETERAN LAKERS FAN

SmartWentCrazy wrote:It's extremely unlikely that they end up in the top 3.They're probably better off trying to win and giving Philly the 8th pick than tanking and giving them the 4th.
User avatar
MrBigShot
RealGM
Posts: 18,555
And1: 20,113
Joined: Dec 18, 2010
 

Re: A Study in Bad Management 

Post#7 » by MrBigShot » Wed Dec 5, 2012 6:48 am

I still can't fathom passing up a proven winner if there ever was one in Phil Jackson for Mike D' Antoni. Offense/style aside, Phil just commands more respect. There isn't any other coach out there in the NBA outside of maybe Greg Poppovich who would have the nerve to call out Kobe like Phil did every now and then. He holds everybody accountable. You don't earn the name zen master for nothing.
"They say you miss 100% of the shots you take" - Mike James
User avatar
Rox_Nix_Nox
Veteran
Posts: 2,887
And1: 26
Joined: Dec 05, 2007
Location: Southernfornia

Re: A Study in Bad Management 

Post#8 » by Rox_Nix_Nox » Wed Dec 5, 2012 6:52 am

Even though i wanted the zen master not even he could fix this team. Did he not slap the **** out of pau? He'd also leave howard in the game, you can't show a lack of confidence in one your star players, he'd probably nudge him through the media though.
Imadogg
Banned User
Posts: 8,179
And1: 251
Joined: Oct 24, 2010
Location: Reseda
Contact:

Re: A Study in Bad Management 

Post#9 » by Imadogg » Wed Dec 5, 2012 7:55 am

Jajwanda wrote:Good management:

PG- Nash (28 minutes), Duhon (20 minutes)
SG- Bryant (32 minutes), Meeks (16 minutes)
SF- MWP (30 minutes), Ebanks (18 minutes)
PF- Jamison (28 minutes), Clark (20 minutes)
C- Howard (30 minutes), Gasol (18 minutes)

Whhaaaa?? Those minutes are just off and not realistic in the NBA and with the players we have. Yes I get some of our guys are "aging" but this makes no sense.

Play Clark 20mpg wut. Ebanks 18?

Nash basically a career low (since he's been a starter) mpg, maybe we can do that but not with our backups. Kobe career low (besides his non-starter days) 32mpg not gonna happen. Dwight career low THIRTY why??? Pau with 18 wtf?????
User avatar
Jajwanda
General Manager
Posts: 8,611
And1: 105
Joined: Jun 01, 2007

Re: A Study in Bad Management 

Post#10 » by Jajwanda » Wed Dec 5, 2012 8:26 am

As long as you have Kobe/Nash or Dwight/Gasol out there you're fine. In the playoffs you ramp up the minutes but there's no reason to play these guys any more than they have to be played. If anything the Lakers have played better in the games that Kobe hasn't played extensive minutes and it's the same with Dwight.

None of the Laker role players except for perhaps Morris at times are a liability at their position (Ebanks remains to be seen how he comes back).

SA gets away just fine with playing role players around 2-3 guys at a time and keeping their best player's minutes down.
LateRoundFlyer
Junior
Posts: 436
And1: 8
Joined: Jun 27, 2012

Re: A Study in Bad Management 

Post#11 » by LateRoundFlyer » Wed Dec 5, 2012 10:14 am

MensRea wrote:This is a long time coming from me. I assure you, this is no knee jerk reaction.


Only 8 games into the D'Antoni Era, and you say this has been a long time coming. I think not. What you're trying to do here is support a narrative based upon one move that ended prematurely and one that just started. This could work if you were willing to evaluate the two independently (which you can't even do yet) but having failed to make that effort at all is highly suspect on your part.

Not to be misunderstood, I'm well aware your views are quite popular around here and elsewhere. But to pass your opinion off as if it were slowly and rationally put together is insulting.
MensRea
Banned User
Posts: 167
And1: 4
Joined: Nov 09, 2012

Re: A Study in Bad Management 

Post#12 » by MensRea » Wed Dec 5, 2012 10:36 am

LateRoundFlyer wrote:
MensRea wrote:This is a long time coming from me. I assure you, this is no knee jerk reaction.


Only 8 games into the D'Antoni Era, and you say this has been a long time coming. I think not. What you're trying to do here is support a narrative based upon one move that ended prematurely and one that just started. This could work if you were willing to evaluate the two independently (which you can't even do yet) but having failed to make that effort at all is highly suspect on your part.

Not to be misunderstood, I'm well aware your views are quite popular around here and elsewhere. But to pass your opinion off as if it were slowly and rationally put together is insulting.


Yeah, I'm gonna assume you didn't read anything other than that last sentence. And on the off chance you read the whole thing, this is what slowly building up looks like

Jim Buss takes over
1) Mike Brown is hired over several highly respected more viable candidates

2) Weird irrational fixation of purging everything Phil Jackson from the Lakers organization

3) Overreacted to LO sulking, without ever giving Mitch the chance to see what we could get for LO, at a time when he was still considered an NBA player. (Mitch fixed it later, but is began a pattern of weird decisions.)

4) Dropped Derek Fisher for no reason, he didn't cost us anything, would have been nice to have depth wise for our playoff run considering how bad Sessions was, and did it partially because Brown couldn't handle having to tell Fisher that he wasn't going to start.

5) Fired all of our scouts, including assistant GM Ronnie Lester, including lots of employees who'd been with the team since the 80's for no reason, creating a culture of contempt for the Lakers Organization that is beginning to spread...and not because everyone's is jealous of all the winning.

6) Burned our bridge with Shaw

7) Has suspiciously allowed his personal relationships and ego with the players get in the way of rational basketball decisions...leading up to...

8) Phil Jackson was ready to coach the team. They spoke, Danton was going no where. There was no rush, Dantoni was not going to be available to coach the team for a couple weeks anyway. There was no other open NBA head coaching vacancies. They meet with Phil Jackson, agree to talk again Monday, and at 11:58 on Sunday night call Phil to tell him they chose Dantoni, circumstantially leading me to believe he did it as a slap in the face to Phil.

9) IT MADE NO BASKETBALL SENSE to hire a guy who runs a fast paced offense with a group of slow unathletic veterans who excel in grind it out games....none. If in June, we are still standing, you can gladly sig me on this and I'll eat crow with some hot sauce. But I'll tell you what, I don't see it. I was down with Dantoni as the best option if Phil didn't want to coach the team, but Phil Jackson was the perfect coach for this team, everybody knew that. It made absolutely no basketball sense with the personnel that we have to hire Mike Dantoni, when Phil Jackson was ready to coach the team. :evil:

Now you can sit there and tick off my reasons and come up with rationale reasons for all of them. I don't care, these are the little instances that have led to my present day anger at the Lakers front office. They are dysfunctional, poorly managed, and as a result, we are becoming a less and less attractive free agency destination by the month. In the meantime, all the free agents are going to elsewhere, Ray Allen, Grant Hill, they had choices...it's not like we are the premiere franchise anymore. And the front office is to blame for it. Their appearance of impropriety has caused free agents to give pause when making the decision to come here, and we are going to pay for it, and will continue to pay for it...hell, we're paying for it now.

So don't tell me that this hasn't built up over time with me. This absolutely is not a reactionary post from me. I had to get this off my chest. You can agree or disagree with me, but that's how I see it, and I'm genuinely pissed off. I've lost faith in the front office. Yeah, because they didn't choose Phil, but I've seen enough. I've lost my faith. We're a circus, when just three years ago we WERE the best franchise in the NBA. It's deteriorating, and yeah, I'm pointing the finger at Jim.
VIPER8382
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,784
And1: 105
Joined: Aug 09, 2007

Re: A Study in Bad Management 

Post#13 » by VIPER8382 » Wed Dec 5, 2012 12:22 pm

Jajwanda wrote:The solution is there but it will require Nash and it's frustrating to wait on the guy but really there's a lot of good things going on frustrated by one injury.

As for the rest of the problems defense, leads and fatigue, the problem is the team is playing it's best players for too many minutes. They are gassed. If you want to play an older team at a high-pace the minutes have to be reduced.

Good management:

PG- Nash (28 minutes), Duhon (20 minutes)
SG- Bryant (32 minutes), Meeks (16 minutes)
SF- MWP (30 minutes), Ebanks (18 minutes)
PF- Jamison (28 minutes), Clark (20 minutes)
C- Howard (30 minutes), Gasol (18 minutes)

Bump up the intensity, but use your bench players more to make up for it. As long as your role players have offensive producers on the floor at all times (Kobe/Nash plus Gasol/Howard) you are fine.


That is so bad that it speaks for itself.
LateRoundFlyer
Junior
Posts: 436
And1: 8
Joined: Jun 27, 2012

Re: A Study in Bad Management 

Post#14 » by LateRoundFlyer » Wed Dec 5, 2012 12:27 pm

MensRea wrote:
Yeah, I'm gonna assume you didn't read anything other than that last sentence.


So because I singled out one of the more offensive parts of your post for some well-earned criticism, this means I didn't I didn't read anything else you said? Please refrain some making any more assumptions. They've been almost uniformly wrong since you started posting here-- and this has been a long time coming from me.

And on the off chance you read the whole thing, this is what slowly building up looks like

Jim Buss takes over--


Wow. Right off the bat, you're already in a hole. And how?

This is exactly the sort of ill-conceived premise that I said did not count as a legitimate rationale before, and yet here you go anyway, letting it all hang out pink and naked. You and every fan like you always has to start with this dubious claim, because it's the keys to your scapegoat argument. Problem is, the whole notion that ANY one person has unilateral control over this organization's decisions and that he be blamed accordingly for all problems inside this organization, has no bearing on this discussion. And that's without deciding the tiny matter of whether or not it's even true.

Now you can sit there and tick off my reasons and come up with rationale reasons for all of them. I don't care...


Don't you get it yet? It doesn't matter how long of a laundry list of "mistakes" you string together. You could come up with 50 or 5. What's important is that you have listed real mistakes and not just something you disapproved of. To that end, I offer a "sour taste" test.

Firing Ronnie Lester and purging the Lakers organization of Phil Jackson? How is this a mistake? Do you have some crystal ball that shows you a future where we won more championships with them still on board than without? If not, then this is easily sour taste.

Burning bridges with Brian Shaw? Along the same lines, sour taste.

The Mike Brown hire? Clearly a mistake, but we only benefit from knowing this in hindsight and because of the simple fact he is no longer employed with the team. Four weeks ago, this would leave little more than a sour taste in most people's mouths even if they harbored the suspicion that it was a mistake.

Trading a visibly depressed LO for nothing but a player exception -- which later allowed us to acquire Steve Nash? I think even you have a hard time spinning this as a mistake. You suggest they (no, just Jim, ONLY Jim) "overreacted" and that never gave Mitch time to do his due diligence. It's further alluded that we might not have ever needed Nash were we not able to retain LO in the first place. That's a number of questionable assumptions in such a short spate, even for you. This one is clearly sour taste.

"Dropped Derek Fisher for no reason" -- oh really? There was no reason that the Lakers wanted to keep four point guards on the roster before they had to in order to take on Howard? None at all that you could think of? I'll give you a reason -- one that actually has substantial evidence to back it up. Not only was it Derek Fisher who led the locker room confrontation of Brown before the ASB last year, it was Fisher whom the Lakers wanted to keep. They were actually shopping Steve Blake last year to make room for Sessions, in a bid to acquire Beasley: http://losangeles.sbnation.com/los-ange ... umors-2012

This failed, and thus Fisher had to go in order to salvage a deal. Was the parting one a five-time NBA champion, union president, and locker room leader deserved? You could easily argue no, if doing so leaves a sour taste in your mouth. But please, don't try to pass it off like the Lakers went this route without exhausting every other possible option.

"Has suspiciously allowed his personal relationships and ego with the players get in the way of rational basketball decisions..." What in the world does this mean? Is there one bit of this statement you can support with facts? Or were you so desperate to pad your word count that you thought invoking a criticism that's already been thoroughly debunked by the trading of Andrew Bynum, Jim's "golden boy", would somehow slide here? Please.
If this is the penultimate conclusion you came up, you have no valid opinion here after all.

The whole "Phil Jackson return a done deal" speculation that circulated in the media 48 hours before D'Antoni's hire was never confirmed, and it's impossible to know exactly what went down between Jim, Mitch, and Phil during their private meeting beyond their own words and further hearsay. But if anything stands, that neither the FO nor Phil had any sort of contractual discussions during this sit-in raises a lot of questions. If Jackson really wanted to come back, why would they not have at least talked up a tentative deal at all? Many sources close to the situation have suggested Phil wanted an ownership stake in the team and executive role overseeing Mitch. If this turned out to be true, would you still think he was the better candidate for the job? Especially knowing you were going to take the hit for turning him down no matter the real reason he was refused? Especially knowing Phil's reputation for mind games and manipulating the press?

Whether or not you would is one thing. Whether or not you'd be RIGHT to is another, and that's the entire purview of this discussion. You have seen D'Antoni on the bench for eight games so far. Count them. Eight. Before this, you saw the Lakers lose their top two PGs to injury, their starting PF suffer from knee issues, and their star center play his way back into game shape. You have seen them install yet another offensive system on the fly without training camp. However, you haven't seen how this team will play when they are fully healed or when the offense is fully implemented, and definitely don't know how this team will play in April, let alone March. With all that being taken into account, is it the appropriate time to label this hire a "mistake", let alone come to any grandiose conclusions you wish to about the competence of ownership? Logic should compel you to say no.

Then again, however...
So don't tell me that this hasn't built up over time with me. This absolutely is not a reactionary post from me.


...Logic wouldn't tolerate mere petitio principia either.
VIPER8382
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,784
And1: 105
Joined: Aug 09, 2007

Re: A Study in Bad Management 

Post#15 » by VIPER8382 » Wed Dec 5, 2012 12:35 pm

Everybody needs to calm down. While it is true that Nash won't fix all of our problems, we all have to realize that we don't need to fix all of our problems. The name of the game is to outscore the other team, whether it be 150-149, 120-70, or 72-71. Once Nash gets integrated (let's say by his 10th game) our offense should be so efficient that it will mask our defensive issues. You don't always have to fix your problems to win, you can also make your strengths so strong that they overcome your weaknesses, and your opponents.

Back when Tiger Woods was great, I heard him say that he spent a small portion of his time working on his weaknesses, and more time developing his strengths. His theory was that he could gain more there, since he excelled.

In much the same way, we can make our offense so good that it overwhelms the competition, and then once that is in place, continue to try to eliminate the mental mistakes on D, but live with our physical limitiations. Now if Nash doesn't deliver that due to his age, or Kobe refusing to stop hero ball, or due to poor spacing from Gasol, then we can start to panick.
User avatar
kobe808lak
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,686
And1: 601
Joined: Mar 05, 2008

Re: A Study in Bad Management 

Post#16 » by kobe808lak » Wed Dec 5, 2012 2:20 pm

The only coach I thought was worse than Mike Brown is Mike D'Antoni.

Seriously I watched his Knick tenure, he was a terrible coach. His hiring here baffled me. Does Jim Buss know what the hell he is doing?

PJ, Adelman would have been great.
Kilroy
Forum Mod - Lakers
Forum Mod - Lakers
Posts: 21,603
And1: 12,316
Joined: Jul 10, 2006
Location: The Motel 9 in Vegas
       

Re: A Study in Bad Management 

Post#17 » by Kilroy » Wed Dec 5, 2012 2:50 pm

I understand the frustration... Believe me, I'm right there with you on that...
But these reactionary, blame Jim Buss for everything that's gone wrong in the last 2-5 years, posts after every loss or rumor get a little tiresome.
99.9 times out of 100 they're based on the faulty premise that Jim Buss makes all decisions and doesn't consult Mitch, his dad or anyone. Frankly it's too easy a a target and isn't all that well thought out.

And more importantly... We've heard it all before countless times...
Never have rice at Hanzo's house...

Return to Los Angeles Lakers


cron