RealGM

in 2008, the Spurs lost to the young, newly revamped and up-in-coming Lakers featuring the impressive frontline of Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum in the playoffs in a decisive five games in the WCF, after getting taken to a seventh game in a grueling series against the emerging Hornets. With the re-mergence of the Lakers and the newly put together and first so-called "super team" over in Boston, to many the Spurs era had ended.

Lakers are in a similar situation. They get defeated by a young, up-in-coming team in OKC, after being taken a game seven against a young and ascending Nuggets team. This time, the super team is the Heat. Many are saying, as they did with the Spurs in '08 after the Spurs were defeated by the Lakers, that the Lakers era is over, that there is a changing of the guard.

I don't buy it. I think the Lakers have to fill some obvious holes in their roster, but I don't think that there has to be a drastic change to it. What I think they need to do to become a contender again:

First thing they need to do is address is the PG situation. With the NBA being a PG-driven league now, the Lakers are pathetic at the position and they need to acquire a serviceable PG. Someone who is at least able to make the opposing team's PG work on offense and defense. Good thing for the Lakers is there are a lot of talanted 2012 FA PG's that could fill that role: Steve Nash, Jameer Nelson, Raymond Felton, Kirk Hinrich, and Aaron Brookes to name a few.

Second thing they need to do is acquire an athletic back up SF to Artest. Lamar Odom used to sort of be that guy.

Third, like Kenny stated on Inside, the Lakers have to have an identity. IMO, the offense has to definitively go through Gasol and Bynum, with Kobe accepting a role of third option and not going too far outside of that role.

I think the Lakers need to take a scalpal, not a saw to their team right now.

I hope you don't get swept next round.

TheRightAnswer wrote:in 2008, the Spurs lost to the young, newly revamped and up-in-coming Lakers featuring the impressive frontline of Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum

Hold on, I have to stop you right there. Bynum was injured during the 2008 playoffs.

Shem wrote:

TheRightAnswer wrote:in 2008, the Spurs lost to the young, newly revamped and up-in-coming Lakers featuring the impressive frontline of Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum

Hold on, I have to stop you right there. Bynum was injured during the 2008 playoffs.

it depends on who you ask...laker fans know he wasnt there, and was sorely missed...

celtic fans/deluded laker haters say that bynum was trash and wouldnt have helped, some even think he did play...

TheRightAnswer wrote: IMO, the offense has to definitively go through Gasol and Bynum, with Kobe accepting a role of third option and not going too far outside of that role.

I think the Lakers need to take a scalpal, not a saw to their team right now.

I think this is the key. I've been telling my friends this all season, Kobe is about 18 or 19 seasons in the league, he has two 7 footers, why does he feel compelled to have to shoot so much? He has two of the best big men in basketball on his team and as Magic, Chris Broussard and others said, Kobe refuses to let them shoot more than he does. That's ridiculous! Their are so many benefits to working threw the big men like #1 keeping them happy/ focused/motivated, #2 taking the focus off Kobe, #3 saving Kobe's legs for the end of games and more importantly for the playoffs, #4 opening up open shots for perimeter shooters...I can go on and on. If Kobe let's the big men be the workhorses, the Lakers with this very same core, can contend, if not, and Kobe demands to take the bulk of the shots, this team will be in the middle of the pack as far as western conference playoff teams go until of course L.A uses that money to get another star to play alongside Kobe.

TheRightAnswer wrote:in 2008, the Spurs lost to the young, newly revamped and up-in-coming Lakers featuring the impressive frontline of Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum in the playoffs in a decisive five games in the WCF, after getting taken to a seventh game in a grueling series against the emerging Hornets. With the re-mergence of the Lakers and the newly put together and first so-called "super team" over in Boston, to many the Spurs era had ended.

Lakers are in a similar situation. They get defeated by a young, up-in-coming team in OKC, after being taken a game seven against a young and ascending Nuggets team. This time, the super team is the Heat. Many are saying, as they did with the Spurs in '08 after the Spurs were defeated by the Lakers, that the Lakers era is over, that there is a changing of the guard.

I don't buy it. I think the Lakers have to fill some obvious holes in their roster, but I don't think that there has to be a drastic change to it. What I think they need to do to become a contender again:

First thing they need to do is address is the PG situation. With the NBA being a PG-driven league now, the Lakers are pathetic at the position and they need to acquire a serviceable PG. Someone who is at least able to make the opposing team's PG work on offense and defense. Good thing for the Lakers is there are a lot of talanted 2012 FA PG's that could fill that role: Steve Nash, Jameer Nelson, Raymond Felton, Kirk Hinrich, and Aaron Brookes to name a few.

Second thing they need to do is acquire an athletic back up SF to Artest. Lamar Odom used to sort of be that guy.

Third, like Kenny stated on Inside, the Lakers have to have an identity. IMO, the offense has to definitively go through Gasol and Bynum, with Kobe accepting a role of third option and not going too far outside of that role.

I think the Lakers need to take a scalpal, not a saw to their team right now.

I am a Spurs fan, and while I sympathise with your good faith post, what worked for the Spurs cannot work for LA, for the following reasons:
1) The Spurs fanbase and ownership was content to watch the team win, while Duncan added some more laurels as he rode into the sunset. The Spurs knew it was possible they could win, but it was a remote chance, contingent on everything going right. Even now, the Spurs could get blown out by the Thunder or Heat, and nobody remembers how good they looked to this point. Since 2008 Spurs fans have known the team is not winning a title (until this year, when they've felt they had a chance), and they've been cool with it. The fans won't accept that in Lakerville.
2) The players have been cool with it, and form a professional unit who don't mind sacrificing, coming in year after year, and playing for nothing by team glory. The tone was set by their big names, Duncan taking a smaller role as he left his prime, Manu coming off the bench, etc. The Lakers don't have that attitude, so if it all doesn't break right immediately, things will go South. Kobe isn't prepared to wait it out for 5 years like the Spurs and hope things bounce right for them to have a shot.
3) The super stacked teams of the time fell away with age, as everyone could see they would (The Lakers and Celtics). The Thunder are ridiculously young, and the Heat should have plenty left in the tank. The Heat in particular could improve very quickly in free agency.
4) The Lakers have a terrible cap situation, the Spurs did not. The Spurs have always had a very well managed cap and tax situation.
5) The Spurs had to pick up talent from nowhere to improve. Splitter, Leonard, Blair, Green, Diaw, S.Jax. It's difficult to add this sort of talent when capped out. Splitter and Leonard would have been top 5-10 picks in hindsight, Blair would have been top 10-15, Green was picked up out of nowhere (as was Neal), and teams normally can't add 2 guys like S.Jax and Diaw mid-season. I'm not sure how the Spurs retain them both, since they could get all or most of the MLE in the offseason, though the Spurs have pulled off miracles before. We have no reason to believe the Lakers can pull off a series of home runs like this.
6) Coaching has been a great asset to the Spurs. The Lakers clearly have front office issues, stemming from nepotism/ego of Freddo, and weak coaching (due to the need to placate certain players on the team).

The biggest changes the Lakers need to make are ones that they can't make, such as either moving Kobe, or making Kobe play a reduced role, neither of which he will agree to (which matters since he has a no trade clause), and running the team more through the bigs, getting a more disciplined coach, etc.

i'm getting tired of this "running through the bigs, Kobe needs to accept a lesser role, Kobe will never accept a lesser role" nonsense. if the bigs had the heart to take over every game then the bigs would not depend on Kobe to bail them out, period.

Kobe took a record number of shots this year, despite playing worse than he has since he was a rookie. Do you think Kobe will take more or less shots next year when he is further declining? I agree the bigs could and should do more, and the biggest thing to help them do that would be a coach who knows how to make Bynum and Pau respond to him, and institutes a game plan that maximises their strengths. Kobe is the reason you can't bring in such a coach, because he wouldn't co-exist with them, that's why you have Mike Brown, who will let Kobe do whatever he wants.

Kobe didn't play badlythis last game, all things considered, but over the season the core reason for the team's problems has been him, a few games doesn't change that. Nobody is even saying Kobe can't still take the most shots, he's just stalling the offense when Pau and Bynum are so little involved in it on a consistent basis, and we saw that repeatedly this year. It's great when he plays awesome and bails you out, that's been the story of his career, but at this stage in his career those nights are fewer and fewer.

I'm all for Kobe taking less shots and playing less hero ball, but I'm not convinced it would have equated to much more success. Especially now that it's clear Bynum cannot be relied on as a #2 when it counts. Combined with Pau's reduced role and lack of outside shooting, the offense has been a complete mess. We have a lot more problems then Kobe shooting a couple more buckets a game.

All I know is guys need to stop with the "Lakers are in cap hell, capped out" and any other cap bull sh*t you wanna come with. I seriously wonder do guys even know how many teams are even under the cap ?

I know who they are and lets just say they ain't winning sh*t no time soon. So being under the cap means absolutely nothing. I get so tired of hearing that weak bull crap, of all the playoff teams every one was over the cap.

The Lakers don't need a big name type of move, we just need some good second tier type players and move the dead weight off ( McRoberts, Murphy, Blake, Barnes) and revamp with some guys with nuts.

Disagree witchu pimp.

This isn't pickup ball, the business side of ball is as important as the purely basketball side.

Your right though in the sense that it's not so much about the cap as it is about the luxury tax. Now it clearly ain't my money but most owners (including our own) are hellbent on not going over this threhold.

By the way, the Pacers are under the cap and are a very, very good team.

With regard to the Lakers, I can't believe that you don't see that this team lacks balance
and continuity ... and I'm not even referring to our role players.

Our top three to four players lack chemistry. That's where you start with any change.

ALL HAIL wrote:Disagree witchu pimp.

This isn't pickup ball, the business side of ball is as important as the purely basketball side.

Your right though in the sense that it's not so much about the cap as it is about the luxury tax. Now it clearly ain't my money but most owners (including our own) are hellbent on not going over this threhold.

Trust me AH, I'm fully aware of the paper side of the rock. It's just that guys really don't get what the cap is all about. And yet all you hear is "the cap this"...."the cap that", look I get the restrictions that it causes but if it was so much of a damn master lock then explain how in the hell did the Knicks escape the cap hell Isiah Thomas dug them in ?

Teams can and will always manipulate the cap, that said being 27 million over is doing us no favors.

Honestly I think the Spurs outcome will impact what the Lakers do. If they win we may be more patient. If they lose we will go boom