Vision, Chemistry, and Laurels

[ALL HAIL]

I've been wanting to get this out for a long time.

Laurels is defined as achievements in a field or activity.

Although the Lakers are back to back champs, for the last two years, during the good and the bad times, I have strongly felt that this team was very poorly constructed.

Aside from the first championship run, where they were clearly destined to win it all, I've really not believed in this team.

I'm the biggest Laker fan there is, but I have felt pretty strongly for a while that this team needed ALOT more balance on offense and defense.

Most on this board would agree that I have made many suggestions aimed at attaining this balance (ie. starting Blake, making Gasol our sixth man, trading Gasol or Bynum for LBJ, or trading Gasol and Walton for Brand and Iguodala) ... only to be crucified. *PLEASE!!!--no need to critique these suggestions--that is not the point of this thread.*

I'm about as conservative as they come, but in auditing the moves or lack of moves on the part of Mitch Kupchak, it becomes very clear that he rests on his laurels. I am not just saying this because the Lakers just lost. I have been feeling this for years. I am only communicating this now, because my audience might be a tad more receptive.

Kupchak has always seemed to NOT be in tune with Phil Jackson and the ways and needs of the triangle. He has never seemed to be able to construct a DOMINANT team with little to no holes in its armor. Although Kupchak has tried many times, he has been unable to put a balanced team together that, when healthy, doesn't have glaring defensive and offensive chemistry issues. I know we won rings twice, but if you're like me, you feel like we were very lucky to win the last ring.

We have always had these glaring, gaping WEAKNESSES that the rest of the league has been highly aware of (PnR defense, quick PG penetration on defense, lack of penetration on offense, Gasol being rag dolled). The rest of the league hasn't been able to prevent us from winning up until now because our offensive chemistry (with only one center healthy) has been one of the best in the league. Although we have had two talented seven footers for the last three seasons, we have essentially been successful with only one. This made our offensive chemistry one of the best in the league, even without pure shooters. This offensive chemistry with just one center has allowed us to be successful without a dominant, intimidating defense (my biggest problem with this team over the years).

Kupchak for some reason has been unable to see and address these weaknesses. His excuse, one that most of the short sighted posters on this board accepted, has been that "we are still winning". Even though a basketball genius like Jerry West has argued that twin towers don't work and we need youth, athleticism, and a penetrator, Kupchak's response has always been "we are winning". My arguement is that the old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" addage never really applied to the Lakers of the last three years.

We've been broke for a while.

Team chemistry is in many ways a spiritual thing. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your parts, how parts mesh, and who does what job on what part of the floor requires a certain vision. Sometimes that vision is a vision of something unseen to even the most naked of eyes. Kupchak has had many outstanding accomplishments, but he has clearly been resting on his laurels for far too long.

[Jetset]

I'll admit that it was tl;dr, and I didn't read a lot of it but if this is about questioning Kupchak as a GM then I think it's warranted.

Quick question. What exactly has Mitch done that has paid off, that you can say without a doubt he was the driving force behind it? Everyone knows how Gasol got here and everyone knows it wasn't because of Mitch Kupchak. It's almost as if he thinks he can just throw something together and it'll work because it's the Los Angeles Lakers. Well now he sees it doesn't work that way. Although I wasn't a member of this forum when he signed Steve Blake last summer, I openly criticized the signing and after the terrible collapse and his overall play throughout the season, a lot of posters that previously thought it was a good signing have seemingly abandoned that thought. But I'm not ready to slaughter Mitch just yet, we were just coming off back to back titles and with good reason the obvious thought was that you wouldn't need to do much to get back to the promise land. Well now it's different, Mitch is going to have to show that he's actually good at his job and he's going to have to make some moves that pay off. The job he has is by far different than the job that most of the other GMs have. The level of expectation and building a championship team or at least contending every single year leaves Mitch with little room for error.

Mitch is now in the hot seat. This year the bright lights are beaming on him, and everyone's eyes will be fixed on him and what he decided to do with this roster. And he hope he feel chills creep down his spine from those stares because he's in danger of losing his job. There are only two options that would without a doubt save his job, those options are Dwight Howard or Chris Paul. Right now our chances are looking bleak at acquiring either one of them but Mitch has to find a way to put this team in a position to compete for their services. They are the only ones that drastically improve the team and continue to make us contenders. If he fails to get one or the other that's one strike already on him. He then would have to make deals for stars that are of lesser fame like an Andre Iguodala, Rudy Gay etc. If he breaks up the core of this team and pulls a trade that doesn't pan out and we get around the same result as this team, the media will crucify him, calling for his head. And Mitch will be done as Laker GM. Simple as that.

[Kilroy]

I think Mitch Kupchack does everything he possibly can, personally to put the best team together possible... I think he works the phones when we're successful and when we're not. He's pulled off some amazing deals in the process... It's just not always up to him...

Judging from Magic and Jerry West's comments, Buss had to be convinced to bring back Phil and go for another championship. I think he knew we needed some new blood and felt the money could have been spent elsewhere but others convinced him to go for it.

Jerry Buss and the Buss family have always been very involved in what is done with the team... That's one of the reasons West left...

So it isn't all up to Mitch. He doesn't pay the bills...

That isn't an indictment of Jerry Buss either... I think we should have spent our money differently this season. We got very old and very slow...

But nobody wants to deal with us especially after Back-2-Back championships... So we take what we get.

[barrettcg]

Simple answer is that Mitch knew with bringing back Phil that he had to gear this team to win ONE more Championship. He thought... and I'm not a phsychic, but he thought that we could simply keep pretty much the same team that we had last year and be good enough to make it back once again. Matt Barnes was never going to be a huge contributor but Mitch thought that he could help on defense and give us a tougher player to help us win. Bringing in Steve Blake wasn't the worst idea in the world but seriously we couldn't have done better? He wanted to allow us to win one more chip and to see the gipper off, but in doing so he handicapped this team and made it harder on Phil. I'll probably be crucified by saying this but keeping kobes best friend on the team just to have another veteran player with experience was not a good idea. However it could have been a good idea if fisher was no longer a starter but instead played a bench role and he could have even played in the fourth during close games when someone with a high IQ was needed. Letting MBenga go for Ratliff was a horrible decision I thought. Both are really cheap except one of those two is wayyy past his prime and he couldn't even stay healthy enough to play more then 30 some games this past year. This year did not turn out well and winning games or not winning games was not the standard in which I used. Mitch should have and could have done better and I think that his time here as the GM will be coming to a close shortly, but at least he didn't pull an Isiah Thomas and ruin our financial future all the way until the year 2014.... or did he..

[Jajwanda]

The problem is that for a couple of years the team sold off picks and didn't add youth. Now that they have the cash to I wonder if they will. Their stubborn behavior with Fisher was unacceptable.

[Sedale Threatt]

Some criticism is probably warranted, but for Christ's sake. We won the past two championships.

Which is two more than 14 teams have ever won, one more than seven other teams have ever won, and equals what two others have ever won, including the New York Knicks.

(If you want to see a truly badly managed team, go check out their recent history.)

In other words, we pretty much equaled or bettered what three quarters of the NBA has done in their entire histories in two seasons.

Yet,

We've been broke for a while.

Huh?

[ALL HAIL]

Sedale you're obviously one of the folks who think that as long as we we're winning all is good.

In reality, you have to constantly make honest assessments about your team and take calculated risks to improve on your weaknesses so that winning can be maintained. In the case of the Lakers, the weaknesses have been obvious (to me and Jerry West mind you) for many years.

When honest assessments are not made about the team and improvements are not made to maintain winning, the bottom will fall out ...

... the bottom has fallen ... we've been broke for a while.

[Sedale Threatt]

How the hell do you win two straight championships when you're broke?

[ALL HAIL]

How the hell do you win two straight championships when you're broke?

Weak competiton (Orlando '09) and home court advantage (Boston '10).

[Sedale Threatt]

So 75% of the NBA has been THAT unlucky to never do what the Lakers did over the last two years?

[dockingsched]

In reality, you have to constantly make honest assessments about your team and take calculated risks to improve on your weaknesses so that winning can be maintained. In the case of the Lakers, the weaknesses have been obvious (to me and Jerry West mind you) for many years.

winning can be maintained like making the finals for 3 straight yrs?

When honest assessments are not made about the team and improvements are not made to maintain winning, the bottom will fall out ...

... the bottom has fallen ... we've been broke for a while.

the bottom has fallen? been broke for a while? what do u think the lakers should have done with nothing but the MLE? traded pau? kobe? bynum? odom?

[dockingsched]

How the hell do you win two straight championships when you're broke?

Weak competiton (Orlando '09) and home court advantage (Boston '10).

wow.

[ALL HAIL]

We obviuosly have different perceptions.

I've noticed chemistry issue for a while now. We have been very, very fortunate to win two rings, especially the last one.

I could also argue that Bynum's injuries were in a way a part of our luck. We have chemistry issues when both Gasol and Bynum are healthy and capable of beasting. They seem to take away from each other's games. I've noticed it for years.

We've won two rings because Bynum was reduced to 20 minute role player and that helped our chemistry. As Bynum got healthier and better, Gasol got worse and neither were really allowed to do their thing. We were in a very strange way fortunate for this unusual "misfortune".

In addition to bad chemistry when healthy, we have had a GAPING hole at PG for at least the last two years and our defense with Gasol and Odom has been average (IMO).

In my world, because of the severity of these shortcomings, championship or no championship, this makes us broke.

I'm a Laker fan since the early eighties my man, I don't compare myself to other organizations ... I don't.

Am I spoiled? Hell yeah.

But because of seeing how Jerry West ran things, where he ALWAYS look for improvements at every turn, I understand that you never rest on your laurels, you always seek to improve and fill in the holes ... Kupchak just hasn't done that ... and you know it!

[ALL HAIL]

In reality, you have to constantly make honest assessments about your team and take calculated risks to improve on your weaknesses so that winning can be maintained. In the case of the Lakers, the weaknesses have been obvious (to me and Jerry West mind you) for many years.

winning can be maintained like making the finals for 3 straight yrs?

When honest assessments are not made about the team and improvements are not made to maintain winning, the bottom will fall out ...

... the bottom has fallen ... we've been broke for a while.

the bottom has fallen? been broke for a while? what do u think the lakers should have done with nothing but the MLE? traded pau? kobe? bynum? odom?

Anyone that has been reading my posts over the last three years knows that I have consistently (almost stubbornly) maintained that the Lakers should trade either Bynum or Gasol whether they win or not. WHY?

Because I: (A) have noticed chemistry issue with them (B) want Kobe in the post and there's no room with two 7 footers and (C) want us to acquire a talented PG and backup PF/C with Bynum and Gasol as bait.

I've always slightly favored Bynum, but thought that anyone of them could be traded and the train would continue pushing on.

So to answer your question cash, yes trade Gasol. You know that I would have traded him after last year's Final for LBJ or Iguodala and Brand.

The MLE would only get us so far, one of the 7 footers should have been traded a while ago (last summer). I'm only saying what I've been saying for years folks .. and now Magic and I think West are saying it too.

[dockingsched]

trading gasol after winning the championship is so unrealistic. of course, if you could get lebron you do it, but that's even more unrealistic.

as far as trading him for brand/iggy, never, and i have no idea why a young sixers team would want gasol anyway.

[Sedale Threatt]

Being spoiled is fine. Having high expectations is one of the great things about being a Lakers fan. Even better is that they typically find a way to meet him.

I just don't understand your perspective, in any way shape or form, starting with the whole "bench Gasol" thing -- which apparently started well before he went into the tank -- up to now, with the notion that we were "broke" while surpassing the entire histories of three quarters of the NBA in two seasons.

Were we lucky along the way? Abso-freaking-lutely. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more fortunate team in NBA history than the Lakers. Even Jerry West, as great as he was, was a huge beneficiary when he built Showtime.

Kareem was already in place after very politely holding the Bucks hostage. We win a coin flip with Chicago for the rights to Magic -- the very definition of blind luck. (Even though we were still apparently considering Sidney Moncrief until Jack Kent Cooke put his foot down and said, F that.) Then we make a trade to the idiotic Ted Stepien of Clevelend for the pick that years later yielded James Worthy.

All hugely lucky.

I'm not going to sit here and say that Mitch has done a bang-up job. He hasn't. Some of the decisions we've made with our MLE are mind-numbing in hindsight. (With hindsight being the key world.)

But the only real complaint I have is PG, and even then I'm not sure how that could have been adequately addressed considering our lack of cap space and assets. I'm sure guys can come up with some pretty sweet deals on the trade thread. But in real life, when people's jobs are actually at stake, it's not easy to pull that isht off when you don't have much to work with.

So in summation, about all I can tell is that you've been predicting we were going to fall apart for sometime. To which I say -- way to go out on a limb.

We've got one of the older, more veteran teams in the NBA, and when you get in that situation, the chances are greater and greater for the wheels to fall off. It happened to Russell's Celtics, it happened to Bird's Celtics, it happened to the Bad Boy Pistons, it would have happened to the Bulls, it happened to us in the early 00s, it happened to the Spurs, it's happening to the Celtics, and it's happening to us.

That's just the way it goes when you're dealing with human beings whose bodies break down and motivations wane.

[Sedale Threatt]

I'm sure guys can come up with some pretty sweet deals on the trade thread. But in real life, when people's jobs are actually at stake, it's not easy to pull that isht off when you don't have much to work with.

Case in point:

You know that I would have traded (Gasol) after last year's Final for LBJ ...

In what alternate universe would the Cavaliers be even remotely interested in doing this?

This is why trade proposals are relegated to their own thread -- so the rest of us don't have to waste our time with them, because 99.9 are total figments of fantasy.

As for trading either Gasol or Bynum, I wouldn't have had any problem shipping Bynum out. Still wouldn't, mainly because of his injury history. But it's been pretty well-documented that he's got some key sponsors in the organization that are absolutely loathe to let him go, so I'm not sure what Kupchak is supposed to do there.

As for trading Gasol after he played like a Hall of Famer in last year's playoffs -- like cash said, totally unrealistic. Especially for the best player in the world.

[ALL HAIL]

trading gasol after winning the championship is so unrealistic. of course, if you could get lebron you do it, but that's even more unrealistic.

as far as trading him for brand/iggy, never, and i have no idea why a young sixers team would want gasol anyway.

I'm not here to pitch old trde proposals, but that word "unrealistic" means absolutely nothing to me.

"Unrealistic" things happen every moment of our lives.

Airplanes flew into towers 10 years ago. If I had've said that could happen, you'd have said what? .. you already know.

Boston dumped Perkins for Green. If I dhad've said that could happen, you'd have said ... you see where I'm going with this.

To say that trading one of two seven footers on a championship team who don't play well together in order to fill a gaping hole at PG/facilitator is unrealistic, is just simple minded.

Championship teams can't make trades to get better. Oh it's unrealistic.

It's also unrealistic that LBJ would want to share top billing with Wade and Bosh would come too to be a role player and oh yeah, that they'd win a ring in their first year together (like Boston did).

If you're going to say something is unrealistic, use logical explanations, but please avoid status quo respones when communicating with me ... you're better than that.

Note: It was unrealistic for Jerry West to get Kobe Bryant and shaq in the same damn summer. And for the record, if Kupchak had just a little more hustle to him, the Laker scould have stole LBJ the sme way Miami stole him ... it just would have taken a little coaxing on the part of Gilbert.

[Sedale Threatt]

And for the record, if Kupchak had just a little more hustle to him, the Laker scould have stole LBJ the sme way Miami stole him ... it just would have taken a little coaxing on the part of Gilbert.

Source?

[ALL HAIL]

Eff a source dude. LBJ was out the door. He had his pick of like six teams. The Cavs had NO LEVERAGE. All they had to do was be open to a sign and trade and they could have been a near playoff team this year.

Now if they were going to absolutely refuse any sign and trade like they stated in the media, then so be it ... on to the next. The possibililty of LBJ is no different than Howard. Both would or would have required a sign and trade.

A GM just has to convince Orlando or Cleveland ot be open to the idea. If not ... on to the next.