RealGM

what do you think caused jim bus to hire mike d? (this is not a controversial/flame thread)....but did any of you guys see what jim bus saw and like the hire?....did you guys not agree with it?....and how do you currently feel about mike d? and what do you guys think of our future season outlook with him at the helm?

Pretty sure most of us here are against the Mike D hiring, and hate Jim Buss in general. I haven't jumped on the hate bandwagon yet, but I'll get there eventually.

therobg125 wrote:what do you think caused jim bus to hire mike d? (this is not a controversial/flame thread)....but did any of you guys see what jim bus saw and like the hire?....did you guys not agree with it?....and how do you currently feel about mike d? and what do you guys think of our future season outlook with him at the helm?

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.

Man so many guys are off on Jim, you've got to realize one thing and it's been mentioned time and time again.....Dr.Buss still has FINAL SAY ON ALL MATTERS period. If anybody here thinks Jim made this hire all by himself they're wrong. On Brown he did, but Doc Buss is the one who pulled the cord on Brown, Doc OK'd the trade for Howard.....told Jim to move Bynum after Bynum blew Jim and Mitch off in season ending meetings.

All I see weather here or on the GB is that Jim is ruining the team, outside of 2 bad coaching hires ( Tomjanovich and Brown ), Jim hasn't set the franchise back at all. You think all that cap space coming in the summer of 2014 happened by accident ?

Even the bad contracts we have aren't contracts that can't be moved. Only Pau's deal is our only handcuff deal on the team. DB OK'd this hire because he long desired to see his team be exciting again, gotta remember that DB is 78 going on 80. I just realized this so called "get Kobe his 6th", is hog wash. It's more about getting Doc his 11th, that's why this team is exceeding the tax and will continue to until that title is won.

But all this talk about Jim is off......way off.

DEEP3CL wrote:Man so many guys are off on Jim, you've got to realize one thing and it's been mentioned time and time again.....Dr.Buss still has FINAL SAY ON ALL MATTERS period. If anybody here thinks Jim made this hire all by himself they're wrong. On Brown he did, but Doc Buss is the one who pulled the cord on Brown, Doc OK'd the trade for Howard.....told Jim to move Bynum after Bynum blew Jim and Mitch off in season ending meetings.

Sounds like you're quite a bit off on him yourself, if you're basically not going to credit him with any decision besides the Brown and Rudy T. hires. So for you to jump on MensRea, Lakers-Texas or anyone else chasing a scapegoat argument is a bit like watching Black vs. Dark Grey.

LateRoundFlyer wrote:

DEEP3CL wrote:Man so many guys are off on Jim, you've got to realize one thing and it's been mentioned time and time again.....Dr.Buss still has FINAL SAY ON ALL MATTERS period. If anybody here thinks Jim made this hire all by himself they're wrong. On Brown he did, but Doc Buss is the one who pulled the cord on Brown, Doc OK'd the trade for Howard.....told Jim to move Bynum after Bynum blew Jim and Mitch off in season ending meetings.

Sounds like you're quite a bit off on him yourself, if you're basically not going to credit him with any decision besides the Brown and Rudy T. hires. So for you to jump on MensRea, Lakers-Texas or anyone else chasing a scapegoat argument is a bit like watching Black vs. Dark Grey.

Off how ? The only decisions he made that backfired were the two hiring's in coaching. The Mike.D hire was a three prong agreement among DB,Jim and Mitch. All the stuff I mentioned is documented and factual. I'm not jumping on anybody, the mere fact that guys keep mentioning Jim in reference to "ruining" the team is just off.

If you want find or point to anything else that has backfired on Jim's watch ? It's empty lingo that guys keep throwing out there and it's not sticking.

Look, if one of three decisions makers can be sold on Mike Brown to the point where he is now fervently advocating for his hire, and he's known to the successor to Brown, meaning he holds the keys to your future employment in the company (Mitch), and Jerry is in the position of trying to put trust and confidence in his son (thereby, allowing his son to make mistakes, and not being as forceful in his opinions), then I'm putting it on Jimmy.

DEEP3CL wrote:

LateRoundFlyer wrote:

DEEP3CL wrote:Man so many guys are off on Jim, you've got to realize one thing and it's been mentioned time and time again.....Dr.Buss still has FINAL SAY ON ALL MATTERS period. If anybody here thinks Jim made this hire all by himself they're wrong. On Brown he did, but Doc Buss is the one who pulled the cord on Brown, Doc OK'd the trade for Howard.....told Jim to move Bynum after Bynum blew Jim and Mitch off in season ending meetings.

Sounds like you're quite a bit off on him yourself, if you're basically not going to credit him with any decision besides the Brown and Rudy T. hires. So for you to jump on MensRea, Lakers-Texas or anyone else chasing a scapegoat argument is a bit like watching Black vs. Dark Grey.

Off how ? The only decisions he made that backfired were the two hiring's in coaching. The Mike.D hire was a three prong agreement among DB,Jim and Mitch. All the stuff I mentioned is documented and factual. I'm not jumping on anybody, the mere fact that guys keep mentioning Jim in reference to "ruining" the team is just off.

If you want find or point to anything else that has backfired on Jim's watch ? It's empty lingo that guys keep throwing out there and it's not sticking.

Actually, I'm probably the last one to bash Jim for the "empty lingo" you're talking about. I'm not sure where this comes from. Maybe you haven't seen me trade off with these guys before, or maybe you're just pushing yourself to argue the opposite of wherever you think I fall on this. In either case, however, it's simply not my belief. In fact, that's where so much of my trouble with your post comes from: you're short-changing Jimbo, in your own way, and yet, it's also their way.

You bring up the fact that Jimbo was responsible for the two coaching hires, while at the same time saying that in every decision, Papa Buss has final approval. Which way do you want it? The only coherent interpretation I can take from this is that you meant the only two times Jerry DIDN'T have final say resulted in the Rudy T. and Mike Brown hires... but then, how is that a "defense" of Jimbo? Do you understand how no logical person could see it that way? At best, this is an inadvertent affirmation of Jimbo's alleged incompetence -- at best. At worst? Is two bad coaching hires the end of the world, even if they were completely Jim's call? Of course not. We had seven terrible coaches between Riley and PJax. Who gets the blame for Randy Pfund and Del Harris? The point is it's a red herring to even bring it up at all.

Next, you've basically attributed all the positive things Jim's done to Mitch or Jerry. Case in point, trading Bynum... as if he was Jim's "golden boy", and Jerry and Mitch traded him over Jim's objections. I mean, this was already such a baseless argument that we only finally debunked when Bynum was traded, and now you want to bring it back by saying Jim had no say in it at all?

From where I'm standing, if your goal is to quash Mensrea's tired scapegoat argument, you've played on his level and failed spectacularly. Which is a shame. Since Jim really isn't the second coming of James Dolan these spoiled, knee-jerk posters would say he is.

LateRoundFlyer wrote:Actually, I'm probably the last one to bash Jim for the "empty lingo" you're talking about. I'm not sure where this comes from, whether you haven't seen me trade blows with either of those two guys (or others) or not, or if you're just pushing yourself to argue the opposite of wherever you think I fall on this. In either case, however, it's simply not my belief. In fact, that's where so much of my trouble with your post comes from: you're short-changing Jimbo, in your own way, and yet, it's also their way.

You bring up the fact that Jimbo was responsible for the two coaching hires, while at the same time saying that in every decision, Papa Buss has final approval. Which way do you want it? The only coherent interpretation I can take from this is that you meant the only two times Jerry DIDN'T have final say resulted in the Rudy T. and Mike Brown hires... but then, how is that a "defense" of Jimbo? Do you understand how no logical person could see it that way? At best, this is an inadvertent affirmation of Jimbo's alleged incompetence -- at best. At worst? Is two bad coaching hires the end of the world, even if they were completely Jim's call? Of course not. We had seven terrible coaches between Riley and PJax. Who gets the blame for Randy Pfund and Del Harris? The point is it's a red herring to even bring it up at all.

Next, you've basically attributed all the positive things Jim's done to Mitch or Jerry. Trading Bynum... as if he was Jim's "golden boy", and Jerry and Mitch traded him over Jim's objections. I mean, this was already such a baseless argument that we only finally debunked when Bynum was traded, and now you want to bring it back by saying Jim had no say in it at all?

From where I'm standing, if your goal is to quash Mensrea's tired scapegoat argument, you've played on his level and failed spectacularly. Which is a shame. Since Jim really isn't the second coming of James Dolan these spoiled, knee-jerk posters would say he is.

You know what, whatever you're trying to argue here in defense of Jim Buss is a red herring in and of itself. Jim has come out time and time again to basically say he's unqualified to be in a position of authority for an NBA team. He's come out and admitted that he is not a basketball mind.

So when Jim Buss is tricked by Mike Brown into thinking he's a better coach then several more viable candidates, and Mitch is afraid to go against the grain because Jim just fired his entire staff, and Daddy Buss is trying to let Jim stretch his legs to let everyone know that "Jim is a real person here now, you have to listen to him," I have a real problem with it.

My thoughts on the matter are logical, on point, and real concerns. Unless you are an actual member of the front office, all you can do is sit there and try to rationalize their arguments, and hide behind, "well, Jim is a scapegoat, and...."

All your doing is taking the opposite position, are in no position of authority to know any better, your basketball opinions are fine, but off ...my opinion. And you know what? Hiring the wrong coach when our Championship window is 2 years or less...maybe three depending on how Kobe ages...it's a pretty big deal.

If Jim were in the background like he were before, I'd never bring him up. But if he's one of three prongs of the decision making machine that is the Lakers front office, you're damn right I'm calling him out on it, and fans are not wrong to look dis-favorably at him. He has no place in the front office. None.

You know who I'd rather have in the front office, then Jim Buss? A basketball guy. Like Phil Jackson. You know why he's not there? Because Buss was threatened by him. Pure and simple. That is my interpretation of the situation, and anything you can offer to counter that is your own interpretation. It doesn't make me wrong, or off point. If you disagree, whatever. I offer a plausible interpretation of the front office based on what I know; which unless you are actually in the front office, is the same information you have. You're welcome to your interpretation, but you can come off your high horse and stop bashing Laker fans for having an opinion .

They were trying to solidify the coaching position for the next 3 years in order to re-sign Dwight. They spoke with Phil, and probably didn't get the impression that he had much energy left.

This thread will go nowhere... Just like all the previous ones have gone nowhere... I'll give it another chance for now though.
But if it can't somehow get beyond the simple regurgitation of hyperbole lifted from journalists opinion pieces, and fan opinion from message boards... If it doesn't somehow take a step or two away from a headlong rush down the hole after the illusive white rabbit...
Imma lock this bitch.

But a few things to think about.

1. In the last 30 years, the Lakers have hired the "Right" coach twice... Riley and Phil... Clearly the right coaches....

Or, they had the best teams or it was a combination of factors... But all in all... If the other guys were the wrong coaches... That's a lot of failures... And you can't blame them on Jim Buss...

2. Outside of maybe 2 coaches in the league today, Pop, and Doc, the talent pool pretty much falls off a cliff... Are any of the rest clearly the "Right Coach"...
That's pretty much what the coaching landscape always looks like... There's always just maybe a handful of really superior coaches, and the rest are just good.
Phil is getting older, clearly hasn't shown the same enthusiasm or fire for the last few years, and had to think about the opportunity for a while before giving a definitive answer... Clearly anything but a slam dunk...

3. Jim Buss is the representing member of the owners family. He's not the GM... That's Mitch.
That said, Jim Buss essentially grew up in the front office of the Lakers, surrounded by some of the best basketball minds in the world. If he absorbed 1/10th of what was presented to him, he probably knows more about basketball than all of the other owners not named MJ (but I'm not sure anybody wants MJ as an owner at this point). He certainly knows his franchise better...
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't absorb it... But one thing's for sure, he's certainly qualified to write the checks for an NBA franchise...

I wanted to puke when I saw Mike Antoni as the coach. Potentially one of the greatest Laker lineups being thrown in the garbage can.

I've never seen a human being (Jim Bus) take a look at a hot steaming pile of dog **** and thought it was pure gold.

Kilroy

So much has been said already about Phil vs Mike Antoni.

But it all comes down to one thing. 11 championships vs 0.

Greatest Laker lineup in years and you don't bring in one of the only guys in the league that can manage multiple superstar egos.

MensRea wrote:You know what, whatever you're trying to argue here in defense of Jim Buss is a red herring in and of itself. Jim has come out time and time again to basically say he's unqualified to be in a position of authority for an NBA team. He's come out and admitted that he is not a basketball mind.

Is Jerry Buss a basketball mind? Is Mark Cuban a basketball mind? Which owners can you say are truly basketball minds? Jordan? I'm sure he helps your case. Or are you prepared to make the outrageous claim that ownership is not a position of authority for an NBA team?

There are no true red herrings here besides the ones you've written. I am willing to give Deep the benefit of the doubt because I know what he was trying to say. With you, I know better. So please, unless you have any idea what the term means or which fallacy it stands for, don't lecture me about red herrings unless you love the irony.

So when Jim Buss is tricked by Mike Brown into thinking he's a better coach then several more viable candidates, and Mitch is afraid to go against the grain because Jim just fired his entire staff, and Daddy Buss is trying to let Jim stretch his legs to let everyone know that "Jim is a real person here now, you have to listen to him," I have a real problem with it.

My thoughts on the matter are logical, on point, and real concerns.Unless you are an actual member of the front office, all you can do is sit there and try to rationalize their arguments, and hide behind, "well, Jim is a scapegoat, and...."

All your doing is taking the opposite position, are in no position of authority to know any better, your basketball opinions are fine, but off ...my opinion.

Let's just square one thing away first: my whole operating premise is and has always been based on the fact that I don't work in the front office, that I don't know anything beyond what Jerry, Jim, or Mitch say to the media, and that quite frankly, I don't have enough solid evidence to judge Jim Buss at all. That's it. How you distort that into a defense of Jim Buss, I'm not exactly sure, but I have a few theories. One is that, like Deep, you instinctively pigeonhole people who tell you you're wrong into a diametrically opposed side. Another is you simply don't pay attention. It could be a combination for all I know. As they say, where there's a will...

Secondly, I'm not convinced that if even you knew what a scapegoat argument was, you'd admit that's what you've got on your hands here. And why? Well, let's see what we're dealing with here:

You first allege that no one in any position of authority of an NBA team should lack basketball knowledge, a statement which, on its own merits, would seemingly exclude not only Jerry as well as Jim from any decision-making calculus, but 27-28 other owners in this league as well. You then try to demonstrate why this is problematic, because Jim was "tricked" into lobbying for Mike Brown, "the way you might trick your 5 year old daughter". You then say the only reason why Mitch and strangely, Jerry -- who's also not a basketball mind-- go along with it is to let Jim assume responsibility for his own successes and his own mistakes.

Alright, now how many people have you eliminated or dramatically downplayed out of this triumvirate to come up with this theory? Conveniently enough, it's two.

And what is your whole reason for doing this again? Because you're seeking to prove it's Jimbo's fault? Holy guacamole, it's damn lucky that the only person with real consequence over personnel decisions you have left is him!

This is what it means to beg the question, in a classical sense. It is quite literally circular reasoning.

And you don't stop there.

And you know what? Hiring the wrong coach when our Championship window is 2 years or less...maybe three depending on how Kobe ages...it's a pretty big deal.

Any time your team fails to win during their championship window is a pretty big deal. Kobe went so far as to say it was a wasted year of his life. And by no means is hiring a coach the only reason it might go wrong, so get a hold of yourself.

I come back to the 7 coaches between Riley and Phil. Where were you when Mike Dunleavy and Randy Pfund squandered Magic's last years of contention, or when Del Harris failed to take the Lakers to the next level?

If Jim were in the background like he were before, I'd never bring him up.

Oh...ohhhhhhhhhhhhh.

But if he's one of three prongs of the decision making machine that is the Lakers front office, you're damn right I'm calling him out on it, and fans are not wrong to look dis-favorably at him. He has no place in the front office. None.

And now we return to the core of your argument. Here, you clearly admit Jim Buss doesn't have unilateral control over the Lakers organization ("he's one of three prongs of the decision making machine..."), but then you take an acceptable enough premise ("fans are not wrong to look dis-favorably at him") and proceed to muddy it immediately. How much effort does it take for you to simultaneously acknowledge Jerry has final say over all decisions in the organization but that Jim is the reason why things haven't been rainbows and unicorns? From where I'm standing, if there's any singular person to blame here (and there isn't), it would be Jerry. You even say yourself that Jerry is purposely yielding to Jim, when he has no obligation to do so. At what point do you focus your criticism on him?

You know who I'd rather have in the front office, then Jim Buss?

Let me think... "a basketball guy" like Phil Jackson?

A basketball guy. Like Phil Jackson.

Oh gee, I wonder why he isn't there.

You know why he's not there? Because Buss was threatened by him. Pure and simple. That is my interpretation of the situation, and anything you can offer to counter that is your own interpretation. It doesn't make me wrong, or off point. If you disagree, whatever. I offer a plausible interpretation of the front office based on what I know; which unless you are actually in the front office, is the same information you have. You're welcome to your interpretation, but you can come off your high horse and stop bashing Laker fans for having an opinion .

Well, actually, I don't really care why he's not there, since I wouldn't have put him there either... but you know, that's just me. I'm not in the front office, as you are so fond of saying, but then again, I'm not really interested in figuring out why that is anyway. I will just throw this out however:

Jim wouldn't be the first person in "position of authority of an NBA team" to have problems with Phil, and I'd be surprised if he were the last. Both Krause and West had problems with him, and this is a matter of public record. And while you'd be right to say Jim wasn't the reason Phil came back the first time, he certainly wasn't the reason he left either.

Again, no interpretation there. But I'll be waiting to see what you'll invent for me.

Finally, about me bashing Laker fans for having an opinion... do you get out of this forum very often? It sure doesn't seem like it. I don't have a problem with Laker fans expressing opinions-- even ones that I disagree with. Even ones that pronounce judgments that I haven't even made yet. These opinions can be very valuable sources of information and reflection, and I consider a few posters around here (Kilroy, as proven above) to be a cut above the rest when it comes to making quality points. But please, don't elevate yourself to their level, then tell me to get off the high horse. And don't conflate my particular criticisms of you with all Laker fans, or even just those who dislike Buss.

It is hard enough to have an open debate with you when you won't cite any of these facts you claim you're drawing your conclusions from. I don't need you injecting character aspersions or a persecution complex into the mix. I wouldn't be surprised if this thread is locked as a result of thi

Kilroy wrote:This thread will go nowhere... Just like all the previous ones have gone nowhere... I'll give it another chance for now though.
But if it can't somehow get beyond the simple regurgitation of hyperbole lifted from journalists opinion pieces, and fan opinion from message boards... If it doesn't somehow take a step or two away from a headlong rush down the hole after the illusive white rabbit...
Imma lock this bitch.

But a few things to think about.

1. In the last 30 years, the Lakers have hired the "Right" coach twice... Riley and Phil... Clearly the right coaches....

Or, they had the best teams or it was a combination of factors... But all in all... If the other guys were the wrong coaches... That's a lot of failures... And you can't blame them on Jim Buss...

2. Outside of maybe 2 coaches in the league today, Pop, and Doc, the talent pool pretty much falls off a cliff... Are any of the rest clearly the "Right Coach"...
That's pretty much what the coaching landscape always looks like... There's always just maybe a handful of really superior coaches, and the rest are just good.
Phil is getting older, clearly hasn't shown the same enthusiasm or fire for the last few years, and had to think about the opportunity for a while before giving a definitive answer... Clearly anything but a slam dunk...

3. Jim Buss is the representing member of the owners family. He's not the GM... That's Mitch.
That said, Jim Buss essentially grew up in the front office of the Lakers, surrounded by some of the best basketball minds in the world. If he absorbed 1/10th of what was presented to him, he probably knows more about basketball than all of the other owners not named MJ (but I'm not sure anybody wants MJ as an owner at this point). He certainly knows his franchise better...
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't absorb it... But one thing's for sure, he's certainly qualified to write the checks for an NBA franchise...

I don't think you can say any of the coaches between Phil and Pat Riley were the wrong coaches. The right coach is dictated by personnel. We were rebuilding in the 90's, so Dunleavy was fine. He took the team to the finals in 91, and it was fine. He had a little clout with the young fellas, and there was nothing wrong with him coaching the team. I don't really remember why he was fired, but I remember him going to Milwaukee and having some success over there.

Randy Phund was a little over his head, but Cedric Ceballos was our best player. We weren't exactly handing him the keys to a Bentley.

Magic was a nice idea, but it didn't work out, it was worth a shot. Really, what was there to lose?

Del Harris provided some nice stability and he was absolutely fine to coach, Nick Van Exel, Eddie Jones, Elden Campbell, Vlade and crew. The job became to big for him once Shaq arrived, and when Kobe was beginning to emerge, there was absolutely no way he could remain coach of the team. He was not big enough to manage the personalities.

Phil was obviously the perfect hire.

Rudy T was not a bad choice. We needed somebody with clout to follow Phil, he had two rings, he could be trusted. Nobody could have expected him to melt down the way he did. I dont blame anyone for that.

Phil comes back... two more rings, retires

----JIM BUSS IS GIVEN MORE CLOUT IN THE FRONT OFFICE----

Rick Adelman is looking for a job, a man with a system perfect for our personnel, a man who could be respected post Phil, with enough clout to make it work and attempt the to get the players to buy in.

B Shaw, Phil Jackson's understudy, who was given a public endorsement by the players, is available, ready to take over the team.

Larry Brown was out there
Hubie Brown was being mentioned....admittedly neither were serious candidates...but...

They hired Mike Brown. And they hired him because it was reported that he absolutely dazzled Jim Buss in the interview. After the interview somehow, the team comes to a consensus that Mike Brown is their guy. Now Mitch Kupchak is a smart man, and it wasn't too long before Mike Brown was hired that they gutted the team of Mitch Kupchak's staff. Against Mitch's objections, Ronnie Lester and the entire scouting staff were gone. Mitch wasn't in a position to make a stand against this hire. It was clear Jimmy had an agenda to purge the team of the Triangle, which is why Shaw couldn't be a serious candidate. Still don't know how they decided to go with Brown over Adelman, but it happened. Jerry Buss, the man who allegedly makes all the final decisions was attempting to put everyone on notice that Jim Buss was going to be his successor, and he had given him more responsibility shortly before the coaching search. He wasn't going to overrule his son, step on his feet, and undermine him in front of everybody.

Therefore, circumstantailly, it's not hard to see why Jim is blamed for the MB hire.

Now, Jim Buss, who is not a basketball person by his own admission, got it in his head that this team full over 30+ year old veterans and a superstar center recovering from back surgery, was up to running an up tempo faster paced ofense with Dantoni. They knew that by bringining in Phil Jackson that he would slow the team down and get them to grind out games and they had a bad taste in their mouths from the Princeton Offense experiment. Rather than trusting the merits of Phil Jackson and his ability to find ways to win games, they went with Dantoni. Now they say that Jerry had the final call on that one, and whatever, maybe he did. But the fact that Jim Buss, being a non basketball person in a position of authority in our front office is a bad thing.

The Lakers made the wrong decision hiring Dantoni. The only thing that will convince me otherwise is a championship. It was logically the worse decision, and all of you know it, judging by how this city was in mourning for days after the decision to hire Dantoni came down. But then most changed their tune saying that, well, at least it will be fun to watch the offense for a change.

Well screw that. We blew it. We just blew it.

Tien wrote:But it all comes down to one thing. 11 championships vs 0.

its actually more like michael jordan, kobe bryant, shaq, and some of the greatest teams ever assembled vs. steve nash, amare stoudemire and the suns.

but nice try.

for the first time in my life, i've put someone on my ignore list.

Doormatt wrote:

Tien wrote:But it all comes down to one thing. 11 championships vs 0.

its actually more like michael jordan, kobe bryant, shaq, and some of the greatest teams ever assembled vs. steve nash, amare stoudemire and the suns.

but nice try.

11 championships vs 0. Not many coaches can manage the egos of Shaq / Kobe / Jordan and garner their respect.

Mike Antoni sure as hell can't.

LateRoundFlyer wrote:Is Jerry Buss a basketball mind? Is Mark Cuban a basketball mind? Which owners can you say are truly basketball minds? Jordan? I'm sure he helps your case. Or are you prepared to make the outrageous claim that ownership is not a position of authority for an NBA team?

No, Owners more often than not are not basketball people, which is why they DEFER to people who make those decisions, such as GM's. Some people who play basketball are not the best talent evaluators, which is why some GM's are better than others. But I'll tell you what, I'll value Michael Jordans opinion over Jim Buss any day.

There are no true red herrings here besides the ones you've written. I am willing to give Deep the benefit of the doubt because I know what he was trying to say. With you, I know better. So please, unless you have any idea what the term means or which fallacy it stands for, don't lecture me about red herrings unless you love the irony.

Get out of here with that. You were trying to defend the merits of Jim Buss basketball decisions. To which I reply, he already said he wasn't really qualified to make such decisions, therefore irrelevant...red herring. If he comes out and says there are no merits to his decisions, and you come out and try to defend those non-existent merits, what do you want me to say to that?

Let's just square one thing away first: my whole operating premise is and has always been based on the fact that I don't work in the front office, that I don't know anything beyond what Jerry, Jim, or Mitch say to the media, and that quite frankly, I don't have enough solid evidence to judge Jim Buss at all. That's it. How you distort that into a defense of Jim Buss, I'm not exactly sure, but I have a few theories. One is that, like Deep, you instinctively pigeonhole people who tell you you're wrong into a diametrically opposed side. Another is you simply don't pay attention. It could be a combination for all I know. As they say, where there's a will...

Basically, I base my operating premise on watching you defend Jimmy Buss and the decisions of the front office, and attacking anyone who rationally comes to the opposite of your conclusions. There is plenty of evidence, having paid attention as a Laker fan of the way this organization used to be run, and the way it's been run since Jim was given more power. I base my opinions on Jim Buss on those who have directly interacted with Jim Buss. (Phil Jackson, Brian Shaw, Magic Johnson, Kurt Rambis, Ronnie Lester, ex players, etc...), because I don't have direct access to the front office. So for you to come out and attack Laker fans who attack Jim Buss, based on nothing but your defense of the rationality of the front office decisions over the past two years (lol) is insulting, condescending, and misplaced.

Secondly, I'm not convinced that if even you knew what a scapegoat argument was, you'd admit that's what you've got on your hands here. And why? Well, let's see what we're dealing with here:

Are you going to make an argument, or spew this adolescent vitriol?

You first allege that no one in any position of authority of an NBA team should lack basketball knowledge, a statement which, on its own merits, would seemingly exclude not only Jerry as well as Jim from any decision-making calculus, but 27-28 other owners in this league as well. You then try to demonstrate why this is problematic, because Jim was "tricked" into lobbying for Mike Brown, "the way you might trick your 5 year old daughter". You then say the only reason why Mitch and strangely, Jerry -- who's also not a basketball mind-- go along with it is to let Jim assume responsibility for his own successes and his own mistakes.

Alright, now how many people have you eliminated or dramatically downplayed out of this triumvirate to come up with this theory? Conveniently enough, it's two.

Right. And historically, for the last 30 years, Jerry has deferred to basketball people. As have the other successful owners in the league.

They just fired Mitch's staff, and Jerry was not going to under mine Jimmy in an effort to earn him some respect in the organization. All logical inference derived from the facts.

And what is your whole reason for doing this again? Because you're seeking to prove it's Jimbo's fault? Holy guacamole, it's damn lucky that the only person with real consequence over personnel decisions you have left is him!

This is what it means to beg the question, in a classical sense. It is quite literally circular reasoning.

No, it's quite linear, and I believe I laid out exactly what the linear sequence was.

And you know what? Hiring the wrong coach when our Championship window is 2 years or less...maybe three depending on how Kobe ages...it's a pretty big deal.

Any time your team fails to win during their championship window is a pretty big deal. Kobe went so far as to say it was a wasted year of his life. And by no means is hiring a coach the only reason it might go wrong, so get a hold of yourself.

Thats not what I said and you know it. I said it was a pretty big deal. You even quoted it.

I come back to the 7 coaches between Riley and Phil. Where were you when Mike Dunleavy and Randy Pfund squandered Magic's last years of contention, or when Del Harris failed to take the Lakers to the next level?

And now we return to the core of your argument. Here, you clearly admit Jim Buss doesn't have unilateral control over the Lakers organization ("he's one of three prongs of the decision making machine..."), but then you take an acceptable enough premise ("fans are not wrong to look dis-favorably at him") and proceed to muddy it immediately. How much effort does it take for you to simultaneously acknowledge Jerry has final say over all decisions in the organization but that Jim is the reason why things haven't been rainbows and unicorns? From where I'm standing, if there's any singular person to blame here (and there isn't), it would be Jerry. You even say yourself that Jerry is purposely yielding to Jim, when he has no obligation to do so. At what point do you focus your criticism on him?

First of all, I never said the decision to hire Dantoni was all on Jim. Never said that once. What I said was that I have problem with him having a say on the decisions. HE"S INTERVIEWING COACHES ON HIS OWN. And yeah, some of it is on Jerry for not voicing his opinion, and maybe he's the one, (allegedly he had was the one who wanted Dantoni over Phil) who should be blamed. It doesn't change the fact that I blame Mike Brown on Jim, and the seeming deterioration for the respect of the Lakers Front office. He came into a unique position of authority protected by his daddy's desire to get him more respect in the organization, and he did damage to the franchise. Absolutely I put that on Jim, for making the decisions, and Jerry for letting it happen.

Well, actually, I don't really care why he's not there, since I wouldn't have put him there either... but you know, that's just me. I'm not in the front office, as you are so fond of saying, but then again, I'm not really interested in figuring out why that is anyway. I will just throw this out however:

Jim wouldn't be the first person in "position of authority of an NBA team" to have problems with Phil, and I'd be surprised if he were the last. Both Krause and West had problems with him, and this is a matter of public record. And while you'd be right to say Jim wasn't the reason Phil came back the first time, he certainly wasn't the reason he left either.

Again, no interpretation there. But I'll be waiting to see what you'll invent for me.

Well, it's a good thing your not in charge of the decisions, if you're the kind of guy that would prefer Jim Buss over Phil Jackson...(yeah, I know you didn't say that, but what I said essentially is I'd rather have Phil Jackson in Jim Buss's position, and you didn't exactly stop there either, did you?) And I don't give a #*% about Jerry Krause or Jerry West issues with Phil Jackson....turns out Phil was right. Turns out Phil is an intimidating guy, people are threatened by him, and they can't really second guess him, so better to get rid of him, or quit. If Jerry West couldn't get along with him, I sure as hell don't expect Jim Buss to be able to. I'd still rather Phil be there then Jim.

Finally, about me bashing Laker fans for having an opinion... do you get out of this forum very often? It sure doesn't seem like it. I don't have a problem with Laker fans expressing opinions-- even ones that I disagree with. Even ones that pronounce judgments that I haven't even made yet. These opinions can be very valuable sources of information and reflection, and I consider a few posters around here (Kilroy, as proven above) to be a cut above the rest when it comes to making quality points. But please, don't elevate yourself to their level, then tell me to get off the high horse. And don't conflate my particular criticisms of you with all Laker fans, or even just those who dislike Buss.

No, I don't follow your posts, I don't know you in life, and the only times I've known you exist on this board is when you've responded with your condescending posts to something that I've posted. All I can speak on is how I've seen you interact with others, and I can't property describe how you come off without getting myself banned.

I don't believe I've elevated myself to any level by stating my opinions, but I am absolutely telling you to get off your high horse.

It is hard enough to have an open debate with you when you won't cite any of these facts you claim you're drawing your conclusions from. I don't need you injecting character aspersions or a persecution complex into the mix. I wouldn't be surprised if this thread is locked as a result of this

[/quote]


You're not really debating, your attacking me. I don't consider this a debate at all. If you want to throw out facts, throw them out. So far, I've thrown out some facts, drawn logical conclusions from them, and you responded with a good old fashioned, "Well, that's stupid." So until you come up with your own, I don't know what to tell you.

Mensrea you're 100% correct in this matter.