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-2012This 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.
