Lakers Now

Round-the-Clock Purple and Gold

« Previous Post | Lakers Now Home | Next Post »

Dynasty talk

The Spurs are about to put the cherry on top of their fourth title run in the last 10 seasons.  And since there's been little else to talk about during these Finals (did anyone not from Cleveland really think the LeBrons had a chance?) other than how awful they've been, discussion has turned to whether or not this title allows San Antonio to qualify as a dynasty.  Some say yes, and I would agree.  They're not the flashiest dynasty in the history of the game (they are, after all, the Spurs), but in the modern NBA, with the salary cap, luxury tax and free agency, to do what they've done?  Four titles to go with year after year of championship relevance?  That's good enough for me. 

But are they better than the other NBA dynasty of the last 10 years, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers?

Depends on what you mean by better, since there's more than one way to look at it, say two guys who would know.  Steve Dilbeck of the Daily News writes that at each team's peak, the Lakers were a superior squad.  I agree with Dilbeck that the best Lakers team (probably '00-01) could beat the best San Antonio team (some think it's this year's bunch - I'd have to go back and scour each San Antonio roster), but you can argue, as D-Fish seems to in the Times article linked above, that San Antonio's run is more impressive. 

The comparison is a great example of how not all dynasties are created equal.  To threepeat is an incredible accomplishment, as is the level of sustained achievement we've witnessed out of San Antonio over the last decade.  They also seem to reflect the image of each franchise.  White hot intensity, star power, Hollywood drama for the Lakers.  Methodical, quiet, some say boring consistency from the Spurs.  Don't forget, too, that the Lakers were a very good team for a couple years before and after the championships. It wasn't like they just appeared, won three straight titles, and then, as Mike Tyson might say, faded "into bolivion."  And there's no question a winning Lakers team gave a buzz to the NBA that the Spurs can't replicate.  It's not their fault, but hey, life is unfair.  Points for the Lakers. Then again, San Antonio will soon have one more title in their decade of excellence, and in the end winning is winning ... and isn't that what it's supposed to be about?

It's clear to me they both qualify as dynasties, but despite the additional title, I'm going to give it to the Lakers by a nose.  Those teams dominated the league in every way, shape and form, on and off the court.  Call it a style and Q rating bonus.  But a couple more years of quality play from the Spurs, and I can't see any reason why that won't happen, and the balance will shift for me.      

What the debate really does is drive home what the Lakers gave up when they couldn't keep their championship-quality teams together.  How many more titles would a fit, motivated Shaq have won with Kobe coming into his prime?  Would we even be having this conversation? 

Question: This thought just popped in my head. Would the dynamic have changed for the Lakers had they lost a series somewhere in the threepeat?  Would it have helped give them a little more perspective?  A little more drive to keep things together for a little while longer?  Maybe added a fourth or fifth title over six or seven years?  Or do you think the breakup would have happened either way (and in this scenario, they'd have just had fewer titles)?  Something to think about. 

BK

 
Comments () | Archives (53)

The comments to this entry are closed.

I think that there is an inherent longevity (at some debatable quality level) in a "dynasty." I don't think that the Shaq-Kobe Lakers meet that to be considered a "dynasty."

"How many more titles would a fit, motivated Shaq have won with Kobe coming into his prime?"

Oxymoron alert!! Oxymoron alert!!

Would they have lost yet? Probably only if a major injury occurred to one of them.

obviously the spurs "dynasty" has been more consistent, but I believe with two of the best players in the game, Shaq and Kobe, the lakers had a better dynasty when they were clicking.

Better than shobe dynasty - hell no, they beat us in the year Kb was having knee problems, else we would've won our fourth str8.

I don't think that the Shaq-Kobe Lakers meet that to be considered a "dynasty."

What do you call a three-peat... lucky???

Threepeat plus subsequent deep forays in the playoffs including a Finals appearance. Yep. That pases the initial test of a dynasty. Ranking the dynasties requires something more than mere numerical observations. You need become legend.

I mean, would anyone have watched the TV show "Dynasty" if it were about nothing more than decent folks going about their jobs with workmanlike competence? I think they call that sort of thing "school."

The early 2000's Lakers were more memorable than the Spurs if for nothing else than sheer league dominance and ability to river casual fans. The Lakers' winning streaks and especially that 2001 15-1 playoffs run, not to mention the number of freaky-good highlight reel plays are reasons why they will still be discussed in hushed toned, even after people reduce the Spurs to the "well, they were good and solid"category.

The Spurs are like a technically solid counter-punching boxer. A wonderful model, and one that will be emulated. The Lakers were like one of the transcendent boxing champions; a singular commodity, and thus one more emblematic of the term "Dynasty."

The Spurs? The get the award for consistency. It's not worse, it's just different.

yep, pretty sad to know (not think), but to know that the lakers and spurs should be battling every season for the top spot in the league.

the lakers imploded.

and the spurs carried on and got better.

pretty damn sad to KNOW that the lakers should still be contending for titles with shaquille o'neal and kobe bryant.

a huge ego has to be the most worthless yet disruptive characteristic there is.

The only player from the 98-99 champion season is Tim Duncan, though.
Right? And the Popovich. Does that count for a dynasty?

keifo,
You are confusing "great team" and "dynasty." A dynasty means long-term greatness. I don't think that the 5-6 years of SHaq-Kobe greatness should be considered "long-term.

Wait, it is accurate to say that for the past 16 years, every champion but three has had either Jordan or Horry?

Wow.

Kobe on holiday in Barcelona traveling with Shammond.

http://www.fcbarcelona.com/web/english/noticies/futbol/temporada06-07/06/n070614100909.html

Fatty

They need to win more than one title in a row, winning every other year or so when the other dominant teams are injured or playing poorly doesn't really cut it. They still haven't ever really beaten a team playing at the top of their game, but they're great at beating teams who are struggling a little bit.

kEIFO, " I don't think that the Shaq-Kobe Lakers meet that to be considered a "dynasty." What do you call a three-peat... lucky???
KEIFO! Thats what I'm talking about.!!!

I dont think there is really a question. With the main course of Shaq and Kobe and seruous helpings of side dishes Fisher, Shaw, Fox and Horry, the Lakers were the most dominant force in basketball at the time. I still think if Buss and Jackson had worked more closely with Shaq and Kobe we could have had a continued run. Even after losing to Detroit we could have come back strong the following year.

That said.

I want to give a word out for my Great Aunt ,Sue Kempke. Sue passed away a May 17, 2007. She was a long time Laker fan. Big love for the Shaq and Kobe era, but Showtime was her squad, and Magic was her man! She would have loved to spend hours in this blog (if she had a pc)arguing with Mike T, siding with Faith as another woman of the purple and gold cloth and understanding the hopes, fears and frustrations of the rest of us. She was great and is missed already!

T-Woody
24/7

From ESPN on Lebron:

Bucher: Sobering. No more "he's the best player in the league" until further notice. No more Michael Jordan comparisons. He's an incredible talent who still has a lot to learn about leadership and execution. Pretending he doesn't isn't doing him any favors -- and it's insulting to those (Duncan, for one) who have.

Hollinger: Forgettable. He's shooting 36.7 percent and has nearly as many turnovers (17) as field goals (22), plus his early foul trouble was a factor in Game 2 and he couldn't make the tying shot in Game 3. The Spurs are doing what the Pistons failed to do -- swarm him and make somebody else win the game.

Broussard: He has struggled, but there's not a player alive who wouldn't struggle when essentially going one-on-five against the best defense in the world. He's scored and created tons of scoring opportunities for his teammates with his passing but, for the most part, they've missed shots. As great as LeBron is, though, he has much room for improvement, which is actually scary. If he had a better midrange J, he'd hurt the Spurs' sagging defense, and he's got to develop a better post game and take advantage of his size on the block more often.

Abbott: The guy just jumped over a 700-foot-high hurdle. It seems wrong to get mad at him for not clearing the 1,000-foot-high hurdle that was behind it. Sadly for LeBron James, even though he just led a mediocre roster to the NBA Finals at the age of 22, the focus will probably be on how much of his expansive potential is not yet realized. Now everyone wants him to have a more reliable jumper, a midrange game, quicker moves with the ball and more assertiveness in the post. That's all stuff he ought to make it his business to get. And I think he will. He can play on my team anytime.

Sheridan: Mediocre at best. He has been too slow to find ways to counter the defensive schemes the Spurs are throwing at him; his team has been basically trounced twice; and his body language after Game 3 was that of a defeated man.

Anthony: We've come to expect so much from the kid after his brilliance in the conference finals. (I sure did.) It's probably unfair, because no one in this league has the responsibility he has, and other than Game 1 he's been, well, average. No matter how great your talent, you need help. Obviously the 911 he sent to his teammates and coaches went unanswered.

Stein: The word is fortuitous. Thanks to a favorable draw and one great series against Detroit, LeBron was insanely lucky to get this experience at the tender age of 22, before the team around him was ready for it. I'd certainly like to see him play more decisively at the offensive end, but facts is facts: He often has been going one-on-five against the league's best D. The biggest LBJ disappointment in this series is that, after all the Michael Jordan comparisons, he couldn't pull in TV viewers in like everyone thought.

I think Stein and Bucher best sums up Lebron's performance thus far. Man, I feel so dumb for even briefly thinking that Lebron is better than Kobe after the Detroit series.

I think you could also say that for the past 25 years, every champ but one has had an original Dream Team member or Horry.

That's just odd.

J-Cool thanks for the links.

repost

LAL_Fan,

Thanks for the post. I guess you’re taking a break from LakerTomboy’s blacklist?

“Shaq is professional? Remember surgery on the 'company time'? This is not a professional approach.”

if what you say is true, it’s a fair statement, but I get the feeling there are circumstantial reasonings that we don’t know about and a typical kobe tactic is to leak bad press about others. So I’m can’t argue you’re point one way or another. I will say that if [emphasis on “if”] what you say is true, that sucks.

“In any 'regular' profession such an employee would fired on spot. It’s also unprofessional do not work off season on your (his) biggest weakness – free throw shooting, bearing in mind his refusal to work with special free throw coach hired by the team.”

Dude everyone has weaknesses. Do you have inside information that shaq wasn’t working on his free throws. When I watch the dude shoot free throws, it’s a different form every time. Even way back to the 00-02 championship runs on ESPN Classic 2 weeks ago. I don’t remember the special free throw coach issue. i guess you gonna call ben wallance a lazy ass too for being a bad free-thow shooter? BTW, i bet shaq can make more free throw and both you and me.

“I would also consider unprofessional showed up in training camp overweight and out of shape especially if you have any respect for team paying you 20M per year. This is my take on ‘professionalism’ of your beloved Shaq.”

Maybe the guy has big bones, maybe the guys getting old, maybe the guy would rather spend time with kids in the offseason, maybe ad nauseum. “Being in shape” is a relative term. I frankly didn’t care if the guy was 500 lbs as long as the lakers were winning and competing for championships. This weight issue is another one of kobe’s shenanigans to discredit shaq as the leader of the lakers…….just my opinion. BTW, it’s not so much that I “belove” shaq as much as my “belove” for the laker team. Look without shaq, we went from perennial contender to perennial chumps. That’s all the evidence I need. Thanks for the chat, I appreciate your time.

Fkillah, ", I feel so dumb for even briefly thinking that Lebron is better than Kobe after the Detroit series. "
Don't feeel dumb man. We are so use to seeing Kobe being better than everyone else
that when somone comes along with even semi decent talent we tend to endow them with
abilitities greater than they have. Lebrons good, but he aint no KOBE, KOBE's good
but he aint no Jordan. Jordans good but he aint no Wilt. and so on and so on

Over the last ten years the Spurs have been one of the best franchises in the NBA. Soon to be 4 titles, very good. Dynasty no.

In 6 short years, the Lakers Shaq/Kobe led teams accomplished 3 consecutive titles, 1 NBA title appearance, and avanced far into the playoffs. It took the Lakers 6 years to accomplish what the Spur took 10 years.

Unlike other great dynasty teams that never played each other. (Old Celtics and Bulls) These teams played each other in their prime, and when healthy, the San Anton team, Robinson/Duncan vs Kobe/Shaq was completely dominated and humiliated by the Lakers.

Neither team in my mind qualifies as a dynasty. But the Laker team was clearly better.

Now this has to be one of the stupidest threads we've considered in the offseason. When I saw Heislers article this morning, I told my wife, I hope BK doesn't follow up that tasteless article with a thread. But , what do you do, not much news out there. And here I am, posting.

Fatty

Ex,

“I think that there is an inherent longevity (at some debatable quality level) in a "dynasty." I don't think that the Shaq-Kobe Lakers meet that to be considered a "dynasty."”

Agreed, that’s why I refer to the laker “almost-dynasty”. I think kobe was thinking it was always kobe’s team (not shaq’s), so if shaq’s gone, kobe will win 3 consecutive because he’s the “greatest on the planet” Pluto.


Fat-Guy in AZ,

How are the ribs?

“Kobe on holiday in Barcelona traveling with Shammond.”

Is there something we should know about kob and shammon……….my gaydar is going Ape $hit like Ventriloquist went ape $hit on me the other day.


Fkillah,

“I think Stein and Bucher best sums up Lebron's performance thus far. Man, I feel so dumb for even briefly thinking that Lebron is better than Kobe after the Detroit series.”

Make sure you tell that to kobe when the both of you are watching game 4...........AT HOME. It’s a process my friend. You wanna bet there will be some re-tooling in the summer and Cavs are back contending in the Leastern Conference next season? Perhaps that’s why kobe “me, me” want to go to the Bulls, so he can show case HIS INDIVIDUAL talent all over ABS next season. Perhaps kobe can demand a trade unless the laker relocate to Oklahoma City?

The Spurs longevity especially in todays leauge is nothing short of impressive. The scary part about this is that they have at least 2-3 more runs at the title. However, the title they won in 99 should carry an asterik as the Spurs beat the #8 Knicks in a 50 game season. I still believe, like you said BK, that the 00-01 Lakers would beat any version of the Spurs team. Moreover, I do fault the Spurs for being boring. The type of players they have and the way they play is just boring, but really effective. Nonetheless, I still give the edge to the Lakers.

fkillah, "The Spurs longevity especially in todays leauge is nothing short of impressive. "
Fkillah you are a fair person and I applaud you.

Faty, "Now this has to be one of the stupidest threads we've considered in the offseason. it's alll good Fatty

KL,

First of all, I would love to have the chance to talk with Kobe. I know the Cav's will definitley retool, no question about that. But like you said, the Cav's play in the Leastern conference so they have a great shot at returning to the Finals once again. But unless they actually become a formidable threat against the Western powers, what purpose does a Finals appearance make? They will be like the New Jersey Nets who absouletly got annhilated in the Finals twice.

fkillah,

"However, the title they won in 99 should carry an asterik as the Spurs beat the #8 Knicks in a 50 game season."

that '99 knick team was pretty good, remember they beat the Heat team that had the best record in the NBA (you might want to check that) granted it was a 5-game series.

Mamba24,

Thanks my man, I try do be..haha..

KL,

I think the Knicks were 25-25 that year. To me, that whole season seemed like a wash. I'm not saying the Spurs didn't deserve to be champions, just that an asterik should be added.

The Tyson quote was actually that he was going to "fade into bolivian", not oblivian. That is what makes him awesome.

The Lakers in the 80's and a three-peat starting in 2000.

I wouldn't call that a dynasty!

Fade into Bolivian? Like Tony Montana right before the staircase scene. That is awesome.

Personally, I would call the Spurs a dynasty... or at least the same level of dominance as you'd bestow onto the 80s Celtics (though there's no way they're even in the same league as that team). Do you call the Showtime Lakers a dynasty? They only went back to back one time. Sure, the Spurs haven't ever gone back to back, but they have been a top tier team for nearly 10 years.

fkillah,

"Man, I feel so dumb for even briefly thinking that Lebron is better than Kobe after the Detroit series."
You get props for admitting you were wrong.

KL,

I won't respect ANY of LeBron's final apperances until he wins a championship. I know getting to the finals is an accomplishment, but just about any team that made the playoffs in the west could have gone to the finals in the east. It's sad to have to say this, but it's the truth. The east is sooooo watered down, that if you added Kobe to the Knicks roster as is, I GUARANTEE they would be in the finals, and I bet you Kobe and a bunch of nobodys would beat the Spurs at least once. Matter of fact, I bet if you replaced LeBron with Wade, the Cavs would have won at least 1 game by now.

Condolences on your loss T-Woody. Your aunt would definitely have stood out and been welcome here. Like I told EdwinG, know that your blog family is behind you at this tough time.

In my opinion it's harder to repeat, sustain that winningness versus retooling every other year and winning that way.

Don't get me wrong, I give all the props to the Spurs for how well they handle their salary cap, how well they scout for european talent, and how they get their players to buy into their philosophy. But in my opinion, their earlier titles were won more in the sense of our "down time" than it is them being the legit champions haha.

Tim,
"or at least the same level of dominance as you'd bestow onto the 80s Celtics ... Do you call the Showtime Lakers a dynasty?"

Which brings up another question: can their be two (or more, I suppose) simultaneous dynasties?

I would call the Showtime Lakers a dynasty. What about the Celtics of that era? Are they excluded from being called a dynasty because there was a team that was better than them over that period?

Lebron isn't the King.

A king will command attention in TV.
A king will be one that everybody like to watch.
No charisma.
No super talents.
He is just a athletic guy who came already famous to the NBA, but lack genuine basketball abilities to be named the best.
Everybody say now; is too much to ask for a kid.
Oh, yea? Why then, people are ready to crown him as the Chosen one, the most exciting basketball player?
Pure hype.
If he is the most loved and charming basketball player why he produced the less watched rating in the last 20 years.
Hum mm.....probably people aren't sold yet.
Lebron need to hire a image guy?

I suggest him to upgrade his abilities.
Too many weakness in his game.
That's why in the USA team, nobody wanted him around.

CENSURED?


AK?BK

I posted some words about Bill Walton comments.
Your guy censored it?

I see a post that I wrote after, but not that one.

Censured?


Jorema,

I don't know what you're referring to. The only comments I saw of yours regarding Bill/Luke Walton was in that thread, and they were posted.

AK

The 60's Celtics / 80s Lakers / 90's Bulls-- roll Dynasty credits.

San Antonio is a strike shortened ring away from that category. Shaq/Kobe was fun while it lasted.

The Shaq & Kobe Lakers never reached the level the Spurs are about to achieve, but when they played each other the Lakers would win. We were better, but our character killed our chances for a dynasty. Just goes to show, what would have been.

Mike Bresnahan in LA Times Thumbs Up.

Let's the truth be told.

The article today from Mike is well rounded. Anybody can differ from his logic in some of their propositions, but he keep it honest and balance on till the end. He isn't focus this time in just one part of the Lakers problems, but in the big picture.

That's what we expect from LA Times. We don't expect from them to treat Kobe Like they treated with Shaq (after all Shaq was friend with them, and they had being loyal to him all the way. Kobe is more self centered, detached and take things from other perspective in a European way, we understand that).

We expect from LA TIMES to avoid low level articles, those just with the intention to attack without mercy or objectivity or when they fail to include the perspective of both sides in any controversy..

In this case if Mike wants to be a advocate for the signing of Luke Walton, and promote that Lakers should overpaid him, is ok.

What 's unacceptable is the promotion of libelous pamphlets, and bias diatribe.

We are all witnesses, LA TIMES.


Bill Walton whining for his son.


Is obvious why Bill Walton wants Kobe to be quiet. His son is looking for a new contract. Since
the Lakers status quo had changed after Kobe radiothon, priority for signing Walton aren't that up.

When he said Lebron's team is less talented than the Lakers, the guy is out of touch.
Can we trade Ligauskas for Kwame, sure right way.
Now he propose a Kwame and Bynum for him.
That's a dumb statement, and that's why he was cut of prime basket comments transmission

We got it Bill Walton! Kobe want to win and his press outburst damage the possibility of a overpaying contract to your son.

Ex, you wanna know what I think? I think the Showtime Lakers were better than the Celtics, but I think it's almost impossible to prove, because the East was a ton better than the West at that time. I guarantee you that if the Sixers were out West, or even the Bucks during the Early 80s, the Lakers wouldn't have won as many titles...that '83 Sixers team might have been the best of the lot.

Man, basketball was good back then. Watch the Purple and Gold running past teams, great players all over the place, fun times...

In a 3 year period, we are superior to the Spurs.

In a 10-year period, they are superior to us.

As a franchise, we are superior. Which is why some of us want to get back to glory and ditch Cancer Boy. Nice PR stunt, Kobe, by showing up at the soccer match, trying to get heat off of your little week-long hissy fit not long ago. The guy is so obvious, it's embarrassing.

Ric Bucher is totally in the tank for Kobe. Anything he says about LeBron has to be understood from the angle of trying to make Kobe look better by putting LeBron or Wade down. I don't trust that guy 1 bit. Honestly, he's an embarrassment to journalism, IMO.

Stein is much better, and more even-handed. Still, many picked the Nets over the Cavs, same with the Pistons. LeBron's 48 point game was the dawn of a new era. Just because LeBron ran into the NBA Dynasty of the last 10 years doesn't change that fact. And trying to take apart a 22 year-old's game with words like 'sobering' is an utter joke. LeBron should be a senior in college, not an 11-year NBA vet.

the spurs are just lucky because the warriors pulled an upset against the mavs in the first round. had the mavs advanced to the finals, spurs would've lost to dirk and co. again, the spurs are lucky that the cas pulled an upset against the pistons. the pistons can actually beat the spurs in the nba finals. spurs are just plain lucky this year. dynasty my azz!

Michael A,
"Ex, you wanna know what I think? I think the Showtime Lakers were better than the Celtics,"

I agree. My question is, would you call the Celtics of that era a dynasty?

fakerz,

Where in Bucher's statements did he try to "...make Kobe look better by putting LeBron or Wade down". Talk about reading between the lines! I've seen worse done to Kobe by other writers (Vecsey, Wojnarowski, Chip Brown, etc.). I wonder , you've never read any of their articles? They've been called by Kobe fans as an embarassment to journalism as well, in their honest opinion.

San Antonio is back into major contention next year , again. How sad it should be fot a Lakers fan , while we are trying to rebuild , pretty desparately , SA is going to be one of the major favorites again. I dont think we have any chance of building the team which is going to be in the top of the West next year , prompting Kobe's leave after next season.
Dont hold your breath , star players are not lining up to play for us , its a new world we are living in. Sad.

Is there a possibility that Shaq is coming back to the Lakers and we will see Kobe/Shaq II ?
I believe if the Lakers pair a healthy/fit Shaq along with Kobe. The Lakers could win 2 more titles. The NBA needs those two together once more. The Lakers need to make it happen. Watch the NBA Final Ratings skyrocket. Forget about the Spurs. I believe the NBA made a huge mistake is choosing the Spurs/Pistons to be NBA Champions.
Shaq/Kobe/Walton/*Stucky/J'Oneal
Bynum/Williams/Evans/Farmar/Cook
= 2-3 More Titles

*Stucky in the Draft. Stucky will become an instant scorer and assist man for the Lakers as their new PG. Forget about 9-12 pts. The Lakers will see a min of 14pts 8 assists from Stucky. Odom for O'Neal. Pair Odom along with Mihm/Brown. 3 for 1. A great deal for the Pacers.

Weave-man
“I won't respect ANY of LeBron's final apperances until he wins a championship. I know getting to the finals is an accomplishment, but just about any team that made the playoffs in the west could have gone to the finals in the east.”

Fair enough about Le-Brick, but remember 2 of the last 4 champions came out of the east.

“It's sad to have to say this, but it's the truth. The east is sooooo watered down, that if you added Kobe to the Knicks roster as is, I GUARANTEE they would be in the finals, and I bet you Kobe and a bunch of nobodys would beat the Spurs at least once.”

I wouldn’t bet on it because kobe hasn’t proven he can lead a group of guys, but it looks like we’ll see when kobe “trade me, don’t trade me, trade me” Bryant is traded. I hope someone at the laker helm holds kobe to his contract and let him go in free agency forcing the Big Waffle to show his true self. In 2009, kobe will be a semi-old man trying to be a #1 on a championship squad? Tough task. Kobe made the biggest mistake of his life thinking he can win championship without shaq. I really don’t care if we get anything in return if kobe opts out. Kobe has already partially destroyed the championship team, now we should let kobe finish the job.

“Matter of fact, I bet if you replaced LeBron with Wade, the Cavs would have won at least 1 game by now.”

Questionable, remember the game is easier for the Penny/Wade/Kobe’s of the world with a shaq in the middle. it's always easy to look good when the defense if attending to an inside guy.

Fkillah
“I think the Knicks were 25-25 that year. To me, that whole season seemed like a wash. I'm not saying the Spurs didn't deserve to be champions, just that an asterik should be added.”

I’ll concede the asterisk for the Spurs ’99 championship. One could argue that most championships in the past 10 since Jordan carry asterisk………I only recall one good series in 2003. Even the laker championship had teams like Philly, Pacers and Nets. In my mind the west finals is the defaco NBA finals. This year, it was the Suns-Spurs series.

“First of all, I would love to have the chance to talk with Kobe.”

I’ll be honest, the dude might be the best guy in the world, but he comes across like an a$$hole to some

If the Lakers are serious about improving their roster her's what they need to do:

Trade Cook, Brown, (sign and trade) Parker and Mihm, and both 2007 2nd round Picks and/or A future 1st round pick for Jermaine O'neal. Then Trade Vujacic and 2007 1st round pick and future 2nd round pick (if possible) for Ron Artest. Sign Luke Walton and Chauncey Billups. Mayube sign James Posey too


Connect

Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

All Things Lakers »

Your database for all things purple and gold.

Find a Laker

Search a name

Select a season

Choose one of our lists



Categories


Archives
 

About the Bloggers


Bleacher Report | Lakers

Reader contributions from Times partner Bleacher Report

More Lakers on Bleacher Report »



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists:


In Case You Missed It...