LateRoundFlyer wrote:You think the concept of deferment is lost on me? Why do you think I brought up how abysmal of a talent evaluator Jordan's been to begin with? You said yourself: "Some people who play basketball are not the best talent evaluators, which is why some GM's are better than others." So why lead off with this belief that only basketball minds telling other basketball minds what to do is somehow a better indicator of success?
You brought up the point. You made a the statement that all the other owners in the league were not basketball people, and I agreed with you, with the exception of Michael Jordan. And in reference to the bold...I trade on the stock market, but it's not my day job. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of why stocks go up or down, but I could join in the discussion. I am susceptible to being swayed by others who know more than I do, and I even form strong opinions that run counter to those who've done it their whole lives, in which I feel very strongly about.....but you wouldn't want me managing your portfolio. My guess is you'd prefer a "Stock" guy, over a laymen with a strong opinion.
Jim Buss is a laymen with strong opinions, who is in a position of influence. Having a non-laymen who was in the same position would be, to me, a better indicator of future success.
And just how do you know Jim never defers? This is the exact giant leap you just expect everyone to make with you, but you haven't proven why we should trust you while you go out and make these hyperbolic claims.
I don't know exactly where you are going with that. My whole point this whole time has been that Jim doesn't defer, and that's why he's dangerous. If he did defer, than he's just a guy with opinions leaving the decisions to the big boys. My premise is that he's not going that. And I'm not asking anyone to make any leaps with me, or trying to convert anyone. I'm simply offering my opinions having been a coherent Laker fan since 1987 (when I was 7 years old). You can have your opinion, and that's cool. I take offense however when you insult others for their opinions.
My first preference would be that you say nothing else at all, since little from you thus far has been sourced or verified in any other way. Failing that however, you could start by not putting words in his, or more immediately, my mouth: he didn't say he wasn't qualified, and I'm not defending his personnel choices. Get it through your head.
Really dude? Really? Do you need me to link articles to all the facts I've thrown out?
- Kupchak's staff being fired
- Kupchak contemplating leaving
- Shaws comments about Jim Buss
- Phils comments about Jim Buss
- Magic's comments about Jim Buss
- Kurt's comments about Jim Buss
- Ex front office personnel's comments...including Ronnie Lester, and scouts comments about Jim Buss...
- Kobe's comments about Jim Buss before their new found friendship this season
- blah, blah, blah, to the blah....
I'd rather you just remember all those things happened, since they were all recent. I've commented on facts about this franchise going back to 90-91. If you disagree with any of them, please, call me out.
By the way, the only time -- and I mean the only time -- that I've found from an independent search, in which he said verbatim that he was not a basketball mind, comes from this article:
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/stor ... n-safe-now And even there, the context is suspect:
Jim Buss wrote:So either the system is flawed or something's going on. Or, like the Triangle, it's very hard to pick up and understand. I'm not a basketball mind like he is or the players are, and the players are fine with it, so I just have to be patient.
He's talking about the mechanics of the offensive system, which was obviously at the time the Princeton. Nowhere does he say that he isn't qualified; nowhere was even he referring to personnel or staff-related decisions. Will I permit you that his qualifications are certainly open for debate? No problem. But that's worlds away from what you did. You decided to take creative license with these comments to the point that the person who said them is incriminating themselves for no clear reason. That doesn't add up. That isn't logical at all.
Because I'm studying for a law school final, and allowing myself to get distracted with this. He came on the radio in LA and said essentially the same thing. I'm sure if you search, you can find the actual interview or a transcript. But I've heard him say on numerous occasions, that quote included, that he is not a basketball mind. He relies on advanced metrics to influence his decisions, and that's about it. Basically, he's you and me.
And you know what else? You didn't even provide this source yourself. I did it for you, just so that I could find inspiration for your claims. Your pattern of behavior doesn't suggest someone who wants to have an honest debate, they're the markings of someone with an agenda.
And I'm not gonna...for someone who follows the Lakers I don't feel like I should have to source common knowledge. And I'll tell you what....why don't you call out my agenda. I'll spell it out for you...my agenda is announcing anonymously on the internet that I don't like Jim Buss. Agenda accomplished. And I'd love to debate with you, but what are you offering to counter my assertions? What exactly am I debating? You're accusing me of having an agenda, and fine, I just defined it for you. And then you want sources to all the common bits of knowledge that I've thrown out, I'm not going to do that, you don't live under a rock, and your more then welcome to call me out on anything that's inaccurate.
I'll repeat: don't lecture me on red herrings.
I really wasn't, but at this point, I'm not sure that you really know what a red herring is. Although, I believe I responded with an illustration of a red herring. You offered a red herring...arguing the merits of Jim Buss decisions, to which I called, RED HERRING, HE SAID HE DON"T KNOW S*** ABOUT BASKETBALL SO THERE ARE NO MERITS. (maybe not in those exact words, but you get the point. Come on guy, lets not be immature.
Is Jim Buss not entitled the same basic dignity as anyone else in the front office?
No.
I guess if you don't think so, you can easily convince yourself that I'm defending his decisions very easily. Problem is, you'd still be wrong. There's a crucial distinction between defending the integrity of the decision-making process and the merits of that particular decision.
I don't give a damn about the decision making process if they produce Mike Brown as the head coach. Or Mike Dantoni over Phil Jackson, or the vast array of personnel mistakes the front office has made in recent years.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/ ... really-badI ONLY argue the merits of the decisions, and if there is something negatively influencing those decisions, then they have to go. (I think this is the first opportunity I've had to debate anything with you.
As an example, let's turn the clock back to a time when Jim wasn't the favorite scapegoat in Lakerland, Mitch was.
In 2004, when Shaq forced a trade, Mitch eventually sent him to MIA in exchange for Caron Butler, Lamar Odom, and Brian Cook. At the time, many fans crucified him, and the trade was widely panned. Does that mean a deal with MIA didn't need to be done or shouldn't have been done? Not at all. Does that mean that Shaq had to be traded at all? Absolutely not.
But the deal that did happen happened for a reason, and it's quite obvious that the rationale for the trade was much different than the actual benefits or necessity of the deal. It's no different with any other personnel decision the Lakers have made, whether it's been under West, Mitch, or Mitch and Jim.
I personally didn't crucify Mitch for the Shaq trade, it had to be done, if it wasn't fixable, Phil was leaving, what were we going to do. I along with everyone else did, however, crucify Mitch for the majority of his moves after that. The Shaq trade hurt, especially seeing him win a ring with Wade, but if relationships were broken, and Phil wasn't around to fix it, what could we do?
Defending the impetus for the deal is hardly the same as defending the merit of the deal. As I said before, you're welcome to attach the two as you wish, but doing so is not the "logical" act you think it is.
I disagree, there was logic in that trade. Shaq and Kobe were going to kill each other. Keeping Shaq meant Kobe was going to the Clippers, and Kobe was the younger of the two and they had to pick one to build around. Phil was gone, they still had Malone (he hadn't made the decision to retire yet), they believed they could at least stay competitive and find out what Kobe was going to be. Kobe had the majority of the fan base on his side, they couldn't afford to let him get away, so therefore, the most logical move was to get rid of Shaq. Plus, he was injured every year, he called out the owner, he was asking for another max contract, he was a risk. Kobe was the better bet. That was a decision where both the "impetus" and the "logic" behind the move could be linked together.
See here, this is the problem: I'm basing my "defense" on the only thing that's a given constant -- the only source that's 100% official. Whether it's also 100% true isn't the issue-- no account is. But what you're essentially saying to me is not even that you don't trust it, but that you simply don't like it. And for what? No other reason besides the fact you disagree with the merits of the decisions made in the last 2 years. On the other hand, you are more than eager to trust the "ex-girlfriends past" as a more credible source of information. And gee, I wonder why. Might it be because they're saying the same things you want to hear? Congratulations on the double standard. Nothing condescending or misplaced there, Mr. Pot.
It's not just the merits of the decision, it's the future direction of the organization. And it's not just the "ex-girlfriend," its everyone else who in unison speaks derogatorily about Jim. Plus, that Ex-Girlfriend comes from a place of ultimate credibility. If you're asking if I trust Phil Jackson's word over Jim Buss...yes. I have been given ZERO reason to trust Jim Buss in the front office, whatsoever. He's never had a job, although I think I read somewhere that he used to work at a dairy queen. He's admitted to not being a basketball guy. He wished Kobe an FU and kick in the ass when he thought he was on his way out...and had to apologize when he didn't get traded, nobody who used to work in the front office speaks highly of him, and journalists who interact with him on a daily basis seem to think he's a nice guy, but a little in over his head. Why should I trust him? Why don't you give me a reason to have any faith in the guy.
It's not adolescent vitriol, it's elementary psychology. People with strong confirmation biases are simply more prone to the bunker effect. It's no different than what you might see in people with conspiracy theories or other ideological dogma. They just aren't likely to ever admit they're wrong, and evidence to the contrary only hardens their positions. I apologize if you took it as vitriol, but from your previously outstanding remarks, it seems like an inconsequential retraction.
You sound like a guy, who just took logic201, and are mistaking your knowledge of definitions of logic devises and fallacies with the ability to apply them to fact. That's all I'm going to say about the matter.
Logical inference is looking at a $90m (and now $100) payroll and saying, "You take this one, son"? Logical inference is letting someone fail and fail hard so that they can earn respect? It's letting someone undo in 2 short years (your window, not mine) everything you've worked to achieve in the last 30? If so, why is Jerry even needed around here still? It looks like his son should have things handled by himself already. You've got several inferences and theories, but very few of them seem very concerned with logic.
Nepotism is almost never bathed in logic. That's all I can say. I go bats*** crazy when it comes to making decisions about my daughter sometimes, because I want what's best for her, and could care less of how that affects those around her. She's 6. I can only imagine looking at my 50 year old son who has accomplished nothing in life, while I traverse the sunset of my life knowing what my son has become. I'd want to give him something before I died too...and if that could be a modicum of respect from the organization I built with my bare hands...I'd do it. Nepotism clouds judgment, which i why it's bad for business.
A linear argument would be, as I said, tracing the blame to Jerry, not Jim. And I clearly demonstrated how already. Using your conclusion ("it's all Jim's fault") in your initial point is a tautology. Try again.
If you think that's my conclusion, you clearly haven't read all of my posts, and I'm not responding to this.
I know what you said, and you know what I said. Let's stop projecting, shall we? You keep saying that Jim's "decisions" (as if they're pnly his) the past two years have been nothing but complete failures every single time, and yet you keep relying on one and only one point: the coaching hires. Which is it going to be? If it's the sum total of all his "decisions", then how does the coaching hire push them over the cliff? If it's the coaching hire, why are you so quick to write off the mistakes they made in that department during the 90's? Because we weren't actually contending? That's a good way to hand-wave it off.
I'll let you read everything I've posted in this thread in response to that sentence. I'm not going to repeat myself, read the stuff I wrote when not responding to you.
If your idea of debate is throwing out facts like "Jim fired Mitch's staff, that is a fact!"
Well, Mitch sure as hell didn't fire his own staff. Jim was just given all this extra power, so it was either Jim or Jerry. Who do you think did it?
MensRea wrote:Mike Brown tricked Jim Buss. Buss knows nothing about basketball, and Brown is a good BS'er.
He tricked him...the way you would your 5 year old daughter. The same way Dantoni tricked Buss into thinking it would be a good idea to run SSOL with this old ass team.
Yeah, that was a simplified one sentence version of why it happened, minus all the other stuff. If you want to take that one sentence I said out of context without connecting it to everything else I wrote, its cool.
Implying that he was tricked twice by two unemployed coaches that led to their hires is pretty similar, if you ask me. Someone else might not have noted the subtle difference as I did.
Lol, dude, you have to get over yourself. He was tricked, because he knows nothing about basketball. Just like I trick my 6 year old daughter when I pull a penny out of her ear. She doesn't know any better.
In other words, what you're saying is it's Jim's fault for being born... ಠ_ಠ
Oh, don't get me wrong, that is certainly a logical inference you could have. But does it have a logical premise? Absolutely not.
*sigh*
We're just supposed to believe that Jim somehow manipulated his father's nepotism into a position of great authority, and the very next minute he himself gets manipulated not once, not twice, but three times -- all by different coaches? You really do want to have your cake and eat it too, don't you?
I don't care what you believe. I really don't. You can believe it, or carry on with your life...I don't care. And at this point, I'm lost as to what you're trying to argue here or how you even came to that conclusion. But you're not going to convert me either chief. So I shall move on with my life. Believe what you want...care not I.
If you don't like my responses, I suggest you either work on actually backing your argument up or changing human nature. I can't imagine my experience with you is just some isolated incident. In fact, I perish the thought.
[/quote]
I don't care about your responses, even less seeing how badly you've interpreted what I wrote. I'm glad you disagree with me. And it's not with me, I've seen you post here three times. Once initially to attack me, in which I was not afforded the opportunity to respond because the thread was locked. Then you went in on Deep for some weird reason and you came off each time like a condescending little guy studying for his logic 201 final. There's no reason for it. We're supposed to be on the same team. Hell you're probably a really nice guy, probably a youngster, but a nice guy. I'd probably buy you a beer if given the opportunity. Why don't we just be friends....I offer you a digital beer.
