# Bill Simmons: How I'd Fix the Lakers



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

> I know a Celtics fan should never try to help the Lakers. I know I should bite my tongue. I know I should hope Jimmy Buss keeps ruining his family's team, I know I should be hoping that they'll kowtow to Kobe and make the Lakers juuuuuuuust decent enough to be irrelevant, and that a decade of Blowtime would be my best possible outcome here.
> 
> But here's the problem …
> 
> ...


Much more in link: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9466869/lakers


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Bill Simmons is them man


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

a counter

1) yes to move Nash however you can (or he retires)
2) be mediocre and still get a decent rookie since the draft is so very deep
3) pipe dream moment( I know ): Kobe and Pau willing to take 5m each for 2 or 3 years
4) bye D'Antoni, hello Phil/Phil protégé

decent rookie, two top 40-50 players for a combined 10m per, 50m cap space, Phil/Phil protégé


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Who really cares about his opinion? He said the thunder should of traded harden in his rookie year. He called the Bobby Simmons signing a great deal in Milwaukee. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Wilmatic2 (Oct 30, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> Who really cares about his opinion? He said the thunder should of traded harden in his rookie year. He called the Bobby Simmons signing a great deal in Milwaukee.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


I agree. He makes some valid points, but he's the biggest Celtics fanboy. That alone, saying anything regarding the Lakers, carries no merit. LOL at Billy Goldblock. WTF?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

bill simmons is best when he doesn't pretend that he knows what he's talking about.

the whole "every team in the league should tank to rebuild" thing is really stupid.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> bill simmons is best when he doesn't pretend that he knows what he's talking about.
> 
> the whole "every team in the league should tank to rebuild" thing is really stupid.


Spoken like a man who saw his team aquire Dwight and harden without dipping under 40 wins. Well said. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I just read that article out if boredom. 

I had to endure this clown whining about what an atrocious trade the KG and pierce deal to Brooklyn on draft night. You know, when they should of been discussing the prospects I knew nothing about. Then I read the last two paragraphs of this article. 

Again why should we listen to his opinion?


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

It's not rocket science.

1. Once in a decade type of draft
2. Lakers have no trade able assets that will yield difference makers
3. The cap is the most restricting it has ever been, so less financial flexibility
4. No great free agents are on the horizon - Lebron isn't coming, Carmelo isn't the answer to a title.
5. L.A. Doesn't hold the same value to sports stars as it did in the past.


----------



## arasu (Jan 18, 2013)

MojoPin said:


> It's not rocket science.
> 
> 1. Once in a decade type of draft
> 2. Lakers have no trade able assets that will yield difference makers
> ...


I think most Laker fans that disagree with the idea of intentionally losing, understand the points you make. It is a tempting idea, but the potential reward doesn't seem to be worth the risk. A winning culture is very important to the Lakers. You don't want your players to ever get used to or numbed by losing. Losing is painful for many players. Those are the ones you want on your team. Look at the Spurs and Heat over the last two decades, maintaining the kind of winning culture the Lakers have maintained for their entire history. 

We hear that the '14 draft is a rare one, but there are some great players coming up for the '15 draft as well. What matter is it whether you take a great player in a "great" draft or a great player in an "average" draft. The '03 draft was great, because LeBron, Carmelo, and Wade came from that draft, but the following drafts also had their share of stars: '04 Howard; '05 D-Will, CP3; '06 Aldridge; '07 Durant, '08 Rose, Westbrook, Love; '09 Griffin, Harden, Curry. 

One major point is that there is only 1 Wiggins, and even the worst team in the league is only guaranteed a top 4 pick. In '97 the Celtics had 2 high lotto picks from the 2nd worst and 6th worst teams, yet failed in the Duncan sweepstakes, ruining Rick Pitino's plans for the next decade. His plan to luck into a new winning culture for the Celtics didn't work. A true winning culture didn't fully return to Boston till KG was acquired, which happened by a slow rebuilding that included some post-season appearances and a bit of luck. The Spurs didn't tank to get Duncan. Robinson missed almost an entire season on a team that was nothing without him. The winning culture bounced back fast, probably because they never intended to lose.

If the Lakers have a bad season, it will be caused by injuries or chemistry issues, not by intentional losing. They won't trade/amnesty/force-retire Kobe, so the team will continue it's winning culture despite the W/L record and roster changes. Who knows, maybe the Lakers, with a healthy Kobe and Pau and the right role-players, will have just the right chemistry to win a championship in '14, or not. Then maybe they both return and get hurt in '14-15. The Lakers could end up with a top five pick in '15 instead. What if Myles Turner is the next great Lakers center (better than Dwight) and they rebuild around him? Unless the NBA commissioner agrees to fix the lottery for the Lakers, I don't think risking the long-term loss of a winning culture is worth the potential reward.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

and meanwhile Simmons' hard on for Wilt once again strains through his trousers


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

e-monk said:


> and meanwhile Simmons' hard on for Wilt once again strains through his trousers


Hard one for Wilt? You must've never read his book. He thinks very lowly of Wilt. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

arasu said:


> One major point is that there is only 1 Wiggins, and even the worst team in the league is only guaranteed a top 4 pick. In '97 the Celtics had 2 high lotto picks from the 2nd worst and 6th worst teams, yet failed in the Duncan sweepstakes, ruining Rick Pitino's plans for the next decade. His plan to luck into a new winning culture for the Celtics didn't work.


Eh, even with the '97 draft they picked Billups only to trade him way too soon and passed on Mcgrady for Ron Mercer. Billups and Mcgrady were both guys that needed developing, so it isn't like they would have been taken out of position to draft Pierce the next year. With _good_ management Boston would have had a Billups-Mcgrady-Pierce-Walker contender last decade. It's not so much "you should never tank!" (ask the Warriors) or "striving to win will attract top talent!" (ask the Bucks) as it is you need good management. The common thread between the Thunder and the Rockets is that both teams have good GMs that picked a plan early and stuck to it when it would have been easy to bail (or not take that route to begin with).


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

arasu said:


> I think most Laker fans that disagree with the idea of intentionally losing, understand the points you make. It is a tempting idea, but the potential reward doesn't seem to be worth the risk. A winning culture is very important to the Lakers. You don't want your players to ever get used to or numbed by losing. Losing is painful for many players. Those are the ones you want on your team. Look at the Spurs and Heat over the last two decades, maintaining the kind of winning culture the Lakers have maintained for their entire history.
> 
> We hear that the '14 draft is a rare one, but there are some great players coming up for the '15 draft as well. What matter is it whether you take a great player in a "great" draft or a great player in an "average" draft. The '03 draft was great, because LeBron, Carmelo, and Wade came from that draft, but the following drafts also had their share of stars: '04 Howard; '05 D-Will, CP3; '06 Aldridge; '07 Durant, '08 Rose, Westbrook, Love; '09 Griffin, Harden, Curry.
> 
> ...


You just said everything I wanted to brilliantly. 

There's teams that spent a decade in the lottery. They draft talented players, but those players don't respect the franchise enough and instead of focusing on improving the team everyone just focuses on themselves. 

Lets not act that the single flakiest player in the league leaving the lakers is a sign that players no longer dream of playing here. 

I have all the faith in the world in Mitch. Last two times the lakers picked under 15 they nabbed Bynum and jones, two all stars. Get another one in this draft, sign a all star or two in the summer. Win 50 games in 2015, sign or trade for my more players as Kobe and Pau leave. 




Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Knick Killer said:


> Hard one for Wilt? You must've never read his book. He thinks very lowly of Wilt.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


yes, I know - and the comment I referenced was yet another dig


----------



## arasu (Jan 18, 2013)

Bogg said:


> Eh, even with the '97 draft they picked Billups only to trade him way too soon and passed on Mcgrady for Ron Mercer. Billups and Mcgrady were both guys that needed developing, so it isn't like they would have been taken out of position to draft Pierce the next year. With _good_ management Boston would have had a Billups-Mcgrady-Pierce-Walker contender last decade.


All true, but Pitino was an impatient college coach who was used to rapid change. He should never have been hired in any NBA front office capacity. He showed he could recognize talent (drafting Billups), but had no patience to develop players. He wanted a quick fix (Duncan) and didn't get it. A winning culture requires some patience.

Here is a great article and good quote from Raptors GM Ujiri that relates well to the argument that the patience to build a winning culture is needed.

_“What are we going to do, throw players away?” Ujiri said at the prospect of “tanking.” Last week’s rumour of dealing Rudy Gay to Detroit for the expiring contracts of Rodney Stuckey and Charlie Villanueva might be an example of what Ujiri was talking about. “We’re not going to do that. *And I think winning is what you want to build around.* And I think when you [try to trade away talent for little in return], I’m not so sure the karma is great when you do stuff like that. But I understand the whole big picture and we’re putting all the options on the table.”_

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2013/07/11/raptors-chart-an-unglamorous-route-to-relevance/



> It's not so much "you should never tank!" (ask the Warriors) or "striving to win will attract top talent!" (ask the Bucks)


I really don't see the Bucks as an example of "striving to win", more like "striving to not lose". Part of a winning culture requires taking big risks, something the Bucks don't do much of. The Bucks always seem to lose a piece/gain a piece, playing it safe. Sometimes if a team takes a big risk, it doesn't work out, and that team ends up losing big. They don't intentionally lose, but taking risks can sometimes have the same effect as tanking. Going after Teague is a perfect example of the Bucks play-it-safe routine. THAT is why they are stuck in neutral. And if the Warriors are the prime example of what tanking can do for your franchise, that is one example I think the Lakers definitely should not follow.



> as it is you need good management. The common thread between the Thunder and the Rockets is that both teams have good GMs that picked a plan early and stuck to it when it would have been easy to bail (or not take that route to begin with).


The Thunder look like they are trying to nurture a winning culture. Sam Presti came out of the Spurs winning culture. His first moves with the organization were bold and risky, trading away All-Stars for youth and assets, kicking off the Thunder's new winning culture. The Rockets have been a solid organization since the days of the Twin Towers, and Daryl Morey may be their best GM yet. He has taken many bold risks during his tenure with the Rockets. When Yao retired, he didn't hit the tank button, he just kept working at his plan. The last time the Rockets intentionally lost was in 83-84. Even then, they only chose to do so, because they were forced to trade away Moses Malone due to financial reasons. Back then there was no lottery, so the worst team was guaranteed a top 2 pick (coin flip). After they took Akeem number 1, the NBA installed the lottery to keep teams from getting a guaranteed reward for intentionally losing. Since then, tanking has led many teams into an annual trip to the lottery, constantly losing games, and free-agents.


----------

