Talking With: Ken Miller, Los Angeles Sentinel (Part II)
Here is Part Two of our interview with Ken Miller, longtime basketball writer and the Sports and Entertainment Editor at the Los Angeles Sentinel. Part One sparked a lot of conversation, which we were happy to see. Hopefully, the next installment will do the same. Enjoy.
Andrew Kamenetzky: In terms of bringing back Phil Jackson, to me it seemed to be an odd decision if the strategy is to prepare for two or three years from now. To bring in a guy like Phil, who carries expectations of championships or close to that level, when the team isn’t anywhere near that? What’s your opinion on that hire?
Ken Miller: I think the hiring of Phil Jackson was solely a reputation hire. The Lakers as a franchise, their reputation is in the toilet. When they made the blockbuster trade with Shaquille O’Neal and they sided with Kobe Bryant, they had to bring Phil Jackson in. He was the only guy that they could have brought in that could have given the organization a bona fide reputation. There’s no question that Phil brings that kind of reputation to the Lakers, and I think that he takes a lot of the negativity away from Kobe Bryant. The fact of the matter is that when Phil Jackson is done in three years- if he’s done, because we really don’t know when Phil is going to be done- but if he’s done in three years, I think what they’re going to do is to move Phil Jackson into a decision making capacity upstairs, so that he can attract the players in. Because Kobe Bryant cannot attract the players and they are not guys who are willing to come and play for Mitch Kupchak. So Phil Jackson is going to have to be the magnet to get one of those superstars over here.
I just don’t see it happening. I don’t see it happening, because I think the level of players they’re going to go after, they’re going to be guys who have probably won a championship with their existing team, and are going to want to play for a team that has an opportunity to win a championship. You talk about the marketing base and expanding your personal profile, but that hasn’t helped Kobe Bryant. Why would it help another solid superstar? I don’t even know if it’s going to make a difference. There’s not a guy out there like that. Probably the next superstar is gonna come from the high school and college ranks. You’re talking 2010, 2011 before the Lakers can get that kind of player. I really don’t see the Lakers winning another NBA championship in the next twenty to twenty five years.
AK: Really?
KM: Really.
Brian Kamenetzky: Is that because of the fallout from how the last championship era ended, or is it an issue of current management not being able to construct a team that can win?
KM: I think it’s a combination of both of those things, and it’s the climate of professional, collegiate, and high school sports. You see teams that have been dominant over their past. Look at the Chicago Bulls. The Chicago Bulls are just elated now to get to the playoffs. I see that scenario playing out for the Lakers. Championships, when you win so many of them, you tend to take them for granted, as if they’re automatic. Championships in professional sports are the most difficult things to ever achieve. And I think for the Lakers to get back to that plateau, you’re going to have to ask the rest of the teams to cooperate, and that’s not going to happen. Teams that were beneath the Lakers are now on par with the Lakers. When you look at San Antonio, what they have going on could last for another five years at least, and could certainly go into another decade of dominance because they have people who understand talent, and can evaluate talent. And when the Lakers lost- Shaquille O’Neal was a big thing, but I think the biggest loss for the Lakers was Jerry West. I don’t think they’ll ever recover.
BK: What is your evaluation of the work Mitch Kupchak has done?
KM: I think it’s been horrible. One thing about Mitch Kupchak, I don’t think he can make daring decisions. I think that every decision that he makes has to go through a filter system and Dr. Buss or whatever basketball mind, other basketball minds, they have in the organization. Someone always has to approve whatever Mitch Kupchak does. And the bottom line is ultimately, it’s not going to be the one guy making the decisions on talent, because they realize that he doesn’t necessarily have that ability. He doesn’t necessarily have the reputation of making great personnel decisions. He’s never had to do that. He’s always had someone like Jerry West. To be under his tutelage, learning how to be a general manager, but he can’t give you the insight of his mind, and he can’t give you those eyes, and he can’t give you the vision that he has. I don’t think that Mitch Kupchak has that; I don’t think he’ll ever have that.
And the bottom line is that the job he’s done has been sub par. He’s made safe picks. He’s made picks that he thought were safe, that he felt would not go against the grain. You can call the Andrew Bynum decision a daring pick, but that wasn’t Mitch Kupchak. That was a pick that I think was certainly made by a collection of Lakers front office people, mainly Phil Jackson and Dr. Jerry Buss. I don’t think that Mitch Kupchak said, “This is the guy that I want, and I’m gonna take him.
AK: You’ll hear about different GM’s "discovering" a Manu Ginobli or a Tony Parker, when other GM’s "didn’t." Is some of that, in your mind, just the willingness to take a chance on a Ginobli or a Parker and accepting the fallout if it doesn’t work? As opposed to taking, say, Brian Cook, who is solid, you know what you’re going to get, but doesn’t have that unknown factor that a Ginobli has?
KM: I think you’re absolutely right in your assessment of that. I think that, while Mitch Kupchak would not let anyone else know this, he knows, in and of itself, he doesn’t have the job security that everyone else thinks he really has. So he has to make the safest picks. Because after this General Managing job with the Lakers, there’s not going to be any team in the league waiting with bated breath to hire Mitch Kupchak because he does not have the ability to make those kinds of decisions. He’s a guy who went to North Carolina. He’s a guy who had a marginal professional career. But everyone who goes to North Carolina can’t evaluate talent, not even the greatest player who ever went to North Carolina.
AK: Have you ever heard anything or have any idea in terms of who might be the next GM? If say, things go sour for Mitch Kupchak and he eventually resigns or is asked to resign, do you have any thoughts on who could be his successor?
KM: I don’t, but I think that Phil will have a hand in that decision. And I think that ultimately, Phil will be the guy making all the decisions. If you recall, the primary reason why Jerry West left the Lakers was because of the power that Phil Jackson had. So there’s no question that Dr. Buss is getting ready to turn the team over to his son Jim Buss. And Phil Jackson, not because (Dr. Buss’s) son is involved, but he’s got 9 NBA titles, one of the winningest coaches in the league, with those kinds of credentials, he’s going to be the guy who’s going to be able to make those decisions. He’s going to be the guy that Buss trusts to make those decisions.
So the question is, because we know that he’s never really had to do that, is he going to be able to make the kind of decisions that will allow the Lakers to get back to that elite level, which is a championship.
AK: You’ve talked about the Garnett rumors (and their unrealistic chances). Are there any trade acquisitions that the Lakers could realistically do and should, in terms of players who are either in the last year of their contract or unhappy with their current team, and the Lakers could entice them with their current roster?
KM: The bottom line is that the Lakers really only have one guy that anyone would really want and deal for, and that’s Kobe Bryant. And I think that no one is going to aching to help the Lakers unless the Lakers can certainly help them. And the Lakers don’t have any players that anyone else would want. If you look at the players that have, nobody really wanted Kwame Brown. The guy the Lakers really wanted was Eddy Curry and they didn’t get him. He’s in New York.
So, when you look at that for what it is, I mean, there’s maybe the backups out there… but these guys have peaked out. These guys are not going to make a difference. I think that the Lakers are going to have to catch lightning in a bottle somewhere down the road. And I think they’re hoping that the lightning is Andrew Bynum. But that’s the only scenario that I see right now where it could really help them. People talk about the Baron Davis trade that they didn’t make, but now when you look back on that, it might have been a good deal that they didn’t make that trade. The Hornets are every bit as good, if not better, with the rookie Chris Paul than they would have been with Baron Davis, and Golden State is really not the team they thought they would be with Baron Davis. So I don’t know if Baron Davis was necessarily the right fit for the Lakers at the time, although I know how bad he wanted to play back here in his hometown.
LOL! Part 2 of this article doesn't suprise me at all. More negative stuff to get people chatting on this blog!
20 years for the Lakers to win a title? ROFL! (Literally laughing on the floor for 10 minutes when I read this)
What is even funnier is the 2 great things Mitch has done (Bynum and Smoosh), he still found somrthing negative to say.
On draft night, Mitch said he watched Bynum for quite a while and they were not planning on getting him because he didn't think he would be available. But Mitch knew all about his talent.
Why wouldn't other minds help him in the front office? Thats what a good team is all about. Its just dumb to not get other opinions from other basketball minds. Give me a break!
First he says nobody wants to play with Kobe and then he says he is the only player other teams want. Again, why would teams want him if the players don't?
Hey guys, why don't you interview me? I can give a way better perspective than this guy!
Posted by: Zen | November 30, 2005 at 12:26 PM
A guy that doesn't see a GREAT future for Bynum should not talk about basketball.
He better start to see games, not only talking about rumors.
Posted by: Pie | November 30, 2005 at 12:27 PM
Say what you want about his comments, but his point about championships being tough to win is totally valid. It's very possible the Lakers could go 20 years without another title. I'm not saying it'll happen, but if you asked a Celtics fan in 1986 when he thought they'd win their next one, would he have said 20 years? Probably not, but it's nearly at 20 now, and they're at least three years away, no matter how optimistically you look at their team. The Pacers have been one of the East's most successful teams for a decade. No title. The Knicks haven't won since '73.
Look at other sports. The Cardinals are always in the playoffs, but haven't won since '82. The Braves have won 13 (I think) consecutive division titles, but only have 1 World Series championship. In football, the Dolphins, as high profile a team as there is, hasn't won a S.B. in over 30 years. The Steelers have gone 25 without a title. Minnesota has been to four S.B.'s and never won.
Ken Miller's point, that many (not all, but many) Lakers fans are spoiled and fundamentally underestimate how hard it is to win championships is one I agree with.
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | November 30, 2005 at 01:03 PM
Bynum gave me some love after the Lakers win vs. Seattle so I have to support him. He's a good kid. He lives with him mom. He's 18. His character is what I like. He will surprise you all....good job Mitch & Co. Most daring pick since that whole Vlade for Kobe deal. Haha. Vlade, you still suck.
Posted by: Maleke | November 30, 2005 at 01:14 PM
Last nights loss to the Spurs is solidifying more and more in my mind the selfishness of Kobe Bryant. If he has to take all this shots because nobody else can make them, what is the excuse last night? Sasha Vujacic and Lamar Odom were on fire! Lamar Odom had a mismatch with Finley guarding him, yet Kobe forced those last shots. I am saddened by this being a lifetime laker fan. Kobe may be the best individual player ever, but he's definitely not the best team player out there right now,. He's not making anybody around him better!
Posted by: ender5 | November 30, 2005 at 01:15 PM
geez. i'd like to be all respectful to the guys you bring in to be interviewed, but this guy makes me nuts.
how ON EARTH do you call mitch not daring when he trades a guy who was averaging close to 20 points at the end of the season for a headcase that nobody wants to touch???
and whatever, bynum's a part of his legacy too. why ON EARTH would he think that phil's pick would be a high schooler who won't begin to hit his prime until phil's done with his coaching contract??? everything i've heard said that phil was hands-off about the lakers' draft selection this year.
OW
Posted by: john | November 30, 2005 at 01:18 PM
I don't agree with 20 years at all because all you have to do is look at Laker history. You still have the same ownership and the Lakers are a classy organization. You have to look at the competition as well. The Celtics haven't won in a long time because they had to deal with the Bulls and Michael Jordan for quite a few years. Nobody was going to beat those Bulls in the 90's!
Right now, you only have the Spurs in the west. Every other team in the west is very beatable in my opinion.
Basically saying 20 years is like a slap in the face to the whole Laker organization. Buss will spend every dime in his wallet before that happens because he WANTS TO WIN.
The whole organization wants to win. If they can win without spending tons of money they would, but if they have to spend - they will.
I truely believe that L.A is more of a preffered destination for top free agents over a place like Boston. Who wants to go to Boston when they can go to sunny California?
Basically the Lakers will win within 10 years at the most. Here's why:
1) They are a classy organization that doesn't mind spending money.
2) They have the best coach in the NBA to attract free agents (One of the few things I agree with Ken)
3) Kobe Bryant.
4) Who wouldn't want to come to sunny California?
5) They drafted a huge defensive presence in Bynum.
Posted by: Zen | November 30, 2005 at 01:21 PM
I don't want to wait 20 years. If we can pool together Denzel's, Jack N's, and Titanic Boy's mula, we should be able to afford some real talent outside of Kobe. We can't let the Clippers become the L.A. White Sox!! Keep them in the cellar and help pay the rent!!!
Posted by: Maleke | November 30, 2005 at 01:22 PM
"I really don’t see the Lakers winning another NBA championship in the next twenty to twenty five years."
Ken, you're an idiot who knows nothing about sports.
First of all, if Jerry Buss sold his team tomorrow and the new owner replaced everyone on the team with a bunch of midgets, it doesn't mean that the Lakers wouldn't win a championship in 25 years.
It is impossible to predict more than 6 years into the future with any professional sports team. There is too much movement of players and no one can predict the impact of future drafts.
Also, if anything Los Angeles is a marquee basketball market. By its very nature it tends to attract better players and generate more revenue than say... Salt Lake City or Charlotte. This increases the probability of a team, any team, from Los Angeles winning a championship and the Lakers are not just any team. If they had losing seasons for the next ten years, they would still have a mystique.
Ken, what would make you say something so stupid? It sounds like the complete venting of a loser without patience and the lack of internal strength to even endure mild adversity.
The venting of a spoiled kid who has never had to work for anything.
Learn to have heart. You'll need it someday.
Posted by: Jon Kavulic | November 30, 2005 at 01:37 PM
As a journalist, I can tell you this guy (Ken) is an idiot and a Laker-hater.
The Sentinel sucks.
Posted by: Jon Kavulic | November 30, 2005 at 01:40 PM
I must be a Kobe fan, because watching the game without keeping track of stats, it doesn't seem to me like he's shooting too much. I was surprised to see "9-33" at the end of the game. Sure didn't seem like it. Oh well.
Posted by: Allen | November 30, 2005 at 01:46 PM
"a loser without patience and the lack of internal strength to even endure mild adversity."
This had me crackin' up! He said Ken has a lack of internal strength. Too funny!
Needless to say, I disagree completely with Hatin' Ken's analysis.
Posted by: Rocky | November 30, 2005 at 02:02 PM
Just wondering, who leads the league in missed shots? Iverson?
Maybe it would be a good idea to keep track of this stat.
Posted by: David Chereb | November 30, 2005 at 02:19 PM
I'd first like to say that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SPORTS EXPERT. If Ken knows what teams are good and what players are good, he'd be playing and winning millions with Fantasy Basketball or at Vegas instead of writing a column for the Sentinel.
However I have to him some props. Unlike Plaschke, some of his statements actually make sense.
Posted by: Revgen | November 30, 2005 at 02:24 PM
I think this topic touches upon the question that really deserves scrutiny: is the Lakers' plan to clear cap space for free agents in the next two years really the best approach?
This is where I think the Lakers are heavily influenced by Mitch Kupchak. We must remember that his role in Jerry West's operation, particularly during the immensely successful rebuilding phase in the 1990s, was as the organization's salary cap expert. Jerry West accumulated pieces (through the draft and trades) while Kupchak helped clear space to land Shaquille O'Neal.
The Lakers are essentially trying to do it again, only this time they have Kobe and Lamar Odom already on the books, and no appealing players that faciliate trades. In effect, they have prevented themselves from getting any players other than free agents that don't resign with their teams. As we saw this summer, that list is already dwindling.
The problem with their approach is that they aren't fielding a very good team right now, which makes it less likely that players would want to sign here. Instead of repairing Kobe's image in the league, the roster is making a waste of his talents and makes him seem like less of an impact player. To illustrate, imagine switching LeBron and Kobe between the Cavs and the Lakers. The results in the standings would probably be about the same. (Maybe better if Kobe played with Cleveland's roster.)
In contrast, during the 1990's, Jerry West maintained salary cap flexibility while ALSO accumulating pieces for future trades. The "Lake Show," if you recall, was making waves in the league even before Shaq signed in the summer of 1996.
I think the question Laker fans should ask themselves is whether our current rebuilding plan is shortsighted and ineffective. Honestly, if everything goies according to Mitch Kupchak's plan, who will we sign in 2007 or 2008?
Posted by: LakeShow | November 30, 2005 at 03:18 PM
This guy is a sensationalist who wants to believe every worst case scenario rumor that comes out about the organization just to be able to make controversial statements to attract readers.
Posted by: mannie | November 30, 2005 at 03:41 PM
bynum played very well last night, gave me some hope. i do agree however near the end of the game lamar and vujacic were on fire and kobe should NOT have forced up those off balance 3's. another learning lesson in kobe's quest to make teamates better.
Posted by: Derek | November 30, 2005 at 04:09 PM
That guy is stupid! Journalist should evaluate things without prejudice using facts and not emotion that is the only way they can com to a good honest conclusion; Ken should be release immediately and if KG wants a title he will com to LA soon.
Posted by: Den cor | November 30, 2005 at 04:10 PM
20-25 years in exile seems excessive. This prediction assumes too much and is overly pessimistic.
Posted by: Richard | November 30, 2005 at 04:41 PM
why all the talk about KG coming to LA? is KG gonna be a free agent soon or something? minnesota is not going to trade him, unless they know hes going to leave through free agency. its a nice thought, but thats all it is. wishful thinking! and i agree; the lakers only have 1 tradable commodity in kobe. the next in line would be odom? who would want to pick up that ridiculous contract? 20 years seems kinda drastic, but i don't see the lakers winning the title anytime soon. perhaps, god-willing, they will be in title contention when kobe is towards the end of his career and finish off in michael jordan fashion. think about it--kobe is the only player playing both ends of the court. hes the only one competing, knowing losses will always fall on his shoulders. i expected him to try and accept the challenge of scoring all over "dirty" bruce bowen because thats what competitive players do. they take on challenges. was it wrong for him to make it a personal challenge? yea, but can you fault him for doing so when the lakers swing the ball around, and then it ends up back in no.8's hands at the end of the shotclock, forcing him to launch ill-advised shots. how many of those have we seen--where kobe has to bail the team out of a shotclock violation at the expense of his fg%...his reputation as a ballhog.
why is everyone crying about kobe anyways? are these the same lakerfans who were out there telling their buddies how kobe split 2 defenders and made a dwight howard poster last year? are they the same guys who gloated to their friends when kobe went on that streak of 40 & 35pts? are they the same guys who bragged how kobe set a record and hit 12 3's against seattle? whatabout when he scored a career high 55 against memphis in only 3 quarters? i guess they complained he took too many shots during that game too, right? kobe has a fault, and thats obviously trusting his teammates. but you take the good with the bad, and im not about to cry about how he's a ballhog and "unintelligent" when he has a bad shooting night against a defender, who obviously gets under your skin. playing against someone like bruce bowen, you just want to torch him and scrap all the talk about how he can keep someone like kobe in check. how can you be considered the best perimeter player, when you can be held in check by bruce bowen???
just some things to think about.
Posted by: Lefty | November 30, 2005 at 04:41 PM
This guy is a joke. All he does is speculate and present his opinions with no facts and sources to back them up. Any 5 year old kid could say what he's saying..hardly insightful nor original.
Posted by: Mike Kim | November 30, 2005 at 05:45 PM
John's right.
Say what else you want about Kupchak, but it's ludicrous to claim that Kupchak isn't a risk taker. This offseason the two biggest moves he made were to pick up a very physically talented but underperforming power forward, and draft the youngest player in league history. Both of those are huge risks, trying to catch lightning in a bottle. In the early returns, one move looks good, the other doesn't (par for highly risky moves, I'd guess).
But then, Ken is the guy who didn't understand that trading for a power forward (Kwame) doesn't mean that the team isn't optimistic about Bynum, who plays center.
Posted by: akrasian | November 30, 2005 at 06:02 PM
Why couldn't you guys interview someone like Roland Lazenby who actually does research and has something insightful to say? Instead we get to read some tool ostracize Kobe and Lakers organization: something we hear and read about on media daily.
Posted by: meech | November 30, 2005 at 06:21 PM
Guys, have you ever wonder...trading Mitch Kupchak. =)
Well honestly speaking Kobe needs help from his team mates. Kobe can't be the superhero every game. Lakers needs good role players. Role players that can knock down shots when they're open. Someone has to step up other than kobe in every game. So that the defence on the other team won't focus too much on Kobe.
Right now , the Lakers is sooo young..they need veteran people. Just like the rosters in 2000-2003. Ron Harper, Rick Fox, Brian Shaw, Horace Grant..etc. Veteran players can get the system faster than the young ones...especially the Triangle which is very complicated.
Sooo Mitch better do something good this season...better make a good deal to other teams! Get Good / Smart Role players..and add some veteran players as well.
Posted by: Digtaz | November 30, 2005 at 07:02 PM
Why anyone would listen to this idiot is beyond me. The fact that the authors of this blog are willing to give him a platform for his hatred tells me that this is not a blog I care to visit from this point forward. Ken Miller is a fool, his paper is a joke, and now so is this blog. I had high hopes too.
Posted by: MB | November 30, 2005 at 07:34 PM
the lakers have 2 superstars in LO and kobe and a good supporting cast...its a decent lineup and a playoff contender... i just believe that the triangle is the problem... suns have a better record than the lakers even without stoudamire with an uptempo and fast break offense... so i just believe that they have to dump that triangle..or even the coach...jackson's system is obsolete....why did they bring him back? i wonder...
Posted by: sonny | November 30, 2005 at 08:00 PM
Mr. Miller is much closer to the truth than the posters responding to his comments.
Posted by: O.C. G | November 30, 2005 at 08:02 PM
I don't know, if Kobe's the greatest player in the league, why doesn't he uplift the team around him and why is it he can't ensure consistent wins for his team like an Allen Iverson or Reggie Miller? Maybe I'm misinformed, does he do that? Did the players I mentioned and someone like a Jordan just play with better supporting casts?
Posted by: JD | November 30, 2005 at 08:22 PM
Ken is a real laker hater. He is not a journalist or a good analyst. Why would Phil J decides( or suggests Mitch to pick )to get Bynum straight from High school when he wont even play college rookies in the first place and it takes more than 3 years to develop Bynum( when phil's contract ends that time)
AK and BK,
my request to you. Please do not inverview morons. Ken doesen't know what he is talking. some of the readers here are far better than this laker hater. How did you listened to his crap anyways?
Posted by: Laker Fan | November 30, 2005 at 08:37 PM
Ken Sucks! Lakers will win the Championship in 3 years not 25 years. May be 25 is ken's IQ
Posted by: Kobe Bryant | November 30, 2005 at 08:39 PM
Ken sounded more plausible in Part 1. Odds are against any and every team in the NBA to win a chamionship. It's hard, yes but it could happen for the Lakers within the next 3 years with a little luck, and it does take luck, A couple of shots here and there and we only have 1 ring instead of the 3 we got with Kobe and Shaq. The NBA could fold due to lack of interest in the next 20 years as well,
Posted by: vman | November 30, 2005 at 09:03 PM
Last night against the Spurs, it seemed Lamar Odom turned into a different player when Kobe was on the bench. Same goes for the rest of the team (e.g. Vujacic, Andrew Bynum).
Kobe Bryant is a unbelievably talented one-on-one player. But he won't change into a team-first guy. He may sometimes surpress his I'll-shoot-no-matter-what-because-my-teammates- aren't-skilled-enough attitude, but it'll rear it's ugly head again several time during a game.
That's why I've been saying Laker management ought to trade him for Lebron James or maybe two all-star players. The Lakers need a superstar who can make other guys on the team better.
I think Bryant was able to win three titles because Shaquille O'neal was there to keep him in check. Now that he's gone, he thinks he can do whatever he wants on the floor, which spells doom for the Lakers.
Trade this guy, quick, before the Lakers become the laughingstock of the NBA.
Posted by: Pye | November 30, 2005 at 09:27 PM
This is a simple innocent question: Can someone list to me all the horrible decisions that Mitch Kupchack has made?
Also, this time the Bynum selection is considered "daring" but in the first part Miller is critizising it, saying that should have taken Sean May, isn't Sean May the safe pick? Was Vujacic a safe pick?
Furthermore, you can't compare drafting Brian Cook in the mid-first round, where every draft analyst expected him to be drafted, to Manu being drafted in the mid-to-late second round. There has never been a mid-to-late second round pick that has ever been considered "daring", most mid-to-late second round picks don't even make the team. These are conversations that always frustrate me, when people forget the cicumstances when a decision is made. If the Lakers would have drafted Ginobili in the first round, the next day everyone with an opinion would have called the Laker front office idiots and demand that they all be fired. That's the problem with second-guessing and hindsight.
Now it just seems like Miller is another bias journalist with his own agenda to further his reputation of being smarter than the next guy.
Posted by: Oscar Garcia | November 30, 2005 at 10:59 PM
There are players out there, like Tim Thomas in Chicago, who don't want to be playing for the team they're on (I would give them Kwame and Slava for him). I know we've already dealt with them, but reuben patterson and the worm are out there. Pedja is itching to play with the Lakers. There's players out there that will fill the positions around Kobe. All this talk about driving players away is ridiculous. And any who are, don't need to be in the purp and gold. I would put out a team of
KB8(Slasher),L.O.(Facilitator,Rebounder),T.Thomas(Finisher),Pedja S (Shooter), K.G.(Where else is he gonna go?), (if not K.G.) "Kidrew" Bynum (Rebounds).
Posted by: 1979 | December 01, 2005 at 04:50 AM
Is he crazy? I would take Baron Davis in a heartbeat.
Posted by: 1979 | December 01, 2005 at 04:58 AM
I don't wish anything bad on anyone, but the way things have been with Koby in the past, it seems like maybe a lightning strike will make him change and realize that the game of basketball is 5 on 5 not one on 5. If Koby is unable to play for a 10 game stretch or so, this might affort the rest of the team an opportunity to really discover themselves and for Koby to realize that he is replaceable. It's gonna take the whole organization from top to bottom starting with Dr B to give Koby some religeon to safe this laker team. Chucky Adkins was on to something. Too bad he no longer is around to tell it like it is. Play Andrew more and run some plays for him and we'll see a change. The opponent does not respect anyone playing in the paint on the Laker team. Andrew is the man - if the team let's him. Put Kobe on the bench the last few minutes of each quarter, especially the 4th. The team can only get better compared to current performance and results.
Posted by: MrG | December 01, 2005 at 08:08 AM
First, clearly he lost some credibility by predicting 20 years before another title. He lost me right there, because that's simply not intelligent nor logical.
First, Kobe Bryant is 27, and locked up until his early-mid 30's. If Kobe is ever traded, obviously they'd get a player of at LEAST his caliber. The Shaq trade was an anomoly, and was only done because they had a Plan B AND C (i.e. you still have a top five player, and even if he signed with the Clippers, Plan C was that they'd have tons of cash to spend for the next superstar who wanted to play in Hollywood).
Second, Bynum should remind us of the Pistons. They won with solid role players but the key was a dominant defensive presence in the paint, which Bynum certainly has made a great argument for eventually becoming as he matures.
Third, the Celtics have waited so long because they put all their hopes on Paul Pierce, who is not a top five player. They remind me of the current Wizards, who are led by Arenas who is very good but will NEVER lead a championship team. At best they're a playoff regular, or swept out of the Finals if they are ever lucky enough to get there.
Fourth, in two years the Lakers will clear cap space, which will be plenty to get NOT another superstar, but quality NBA role players. Why do people think you need a bunch of superstars to win? You win with a quality coach, system, and balance on the court. You have a dominant scorer, potentially a dominant defender, possibly a hard-nosed power forward in Turiaf, and cash to spend to attract solid, low-profile role players to play in LOS ANGELES. How are they NOT competitive within a few years? Remind me not to ask this guy for stock market advice....
I think he makes an interesting point, however, about Phil being great GM material. Phil could learn to be on par with Jerry West in that regard. The problem is, he's a coach for now, so either you keep Mitch for the time being and wait that out, or you replace Mitch with an in-house guy like Rambis who would certainly step aside in a few years if Phil was up for the job.
20 years, are you kidding me?
Posted by: will | December 01, 2005 at 08:29 AM
Yeah, you guys should interview Roland Lazenby.
Posted by: Jon Kavulic | December 01, 2005 at 08:37 AM
hey andrew who you going to interview next? ronald macdonald.
Posted by: budha | December 01, 2005 at 11:24 AM
That Ken Miller dude is a major yabo. the only thing i agree with him about is that the lakers let Jerry West go.
Posted by: Rob | December 01, 2005 at 12:43 PM
I think if Ken were good at evaluating basketball teams and basketball players he'd be working for a basketball team. Its easy to sit in a chair and make claims that in 2 days no one will remember, hey where do I put in an application for something like that?
As far as the Lakers go now, I have no problem with the triangle. Many people say trash it. In my opinion the triangle is a fine offense and probably better than most. Its biggest problem is the time it takes to learn it. Any offense is designed to put players in a position a half second before the defender can catch up. Screen and rolls, back cuts, flex offenses, all help the players to work together as one unit to get the best shot possible. The triangle does all those things really really well. It is just more complicated, no one thought we were going to win a championship this year so just chalk it up to a learning year. Hey maybe some trades can be made, but now its all about learning to work as a team (yes that includes Kobe) and learning to maximize the talent we have. I don't think we are even close to that. I bet it takes 40 before we start to see flashes of what could be.
Posted by: Peter | December 01, 2005 at 03:20 PM
Exactly, Peter.
Everybody who has paid attention over the years knows that the Triangle takes a while for a team to learn - it's complicated, but when it works teams get great offensive matchups consistently.
Rather obviously, Phil has decided that this year (especially the first half of the season) is devoted to the team learning the triangle, AND letting the kids get experience that he normally would never give them. That's why Bynum has not only been getting playing time, but from game one has been getting time in close games.
When there's a learning process for the team, there will be ugly times. But it will get better. Heck, there are already some dividends - did anybody realistically think that Bynum would be able to go against Tim Duncan in November of his rookie season and NOT be totally humiliated? Instead, he played well against him.
As the season goes along, the team will learn the triangle better. Bynum and some of the other young players will keep on improving. Hopefully the team will be close enough to make the playoffs when they start to gel - because if Bynum shows as much improvement between game 13 and game 50 as he showed between opening night and game 13, he will be a solid contributor going down the stretch - add in a team that isn't lost on offense, and - well, they won't be a great team, but they could surprise teams - like they nearly surprised San Antonio the other night.
Posted by: akrasian | December 01, 2005 at 03:58 PM
Very well said, Akrasian. I don't think it could be put more simply or directly.
Posted by: Jon Kavulic | December 01, 2005 at 04:30 PM
I for one was glad to see Kobe out of the game at winning or losing time in Utah. If you saw the game , you saw Kobe come down the floor with a few minutes left in the game and put up those foolish shots with lots of time on the shot clock and team mates starting to set up. Each time he missed I could see him giving another game away.
Sad to say, but this Laker team has to play extra good to get a win. They must overcome the other team, and Kobe..
Posted by: Salvador Ruiz | December 02, 2005 at 06:27 AM
Very truthful ...
Posted by: Pedro Navajas | December 08, 2005 at 10:31 PM
Well done..
Posted by: Zen | February 10, 2006 at 12:49 PM