Reply With Quote
I would say 1.
I only ask this because of the current LO situation.
I mean basically Buss didn't want to pay shaq, so he traded him away, and it was only until the pau gasol trade that the lakers started being on top again.
I'm sure that Phil, considered one of the best in dealing with personalities, would've found a way after that 2004 fiasco to get the two playing together again. They could have drafted well, and picked up some role players and at least been a 50 win team with a chance at winning more les, instead of staying in mediocrity for years, until winning 1 now.
Obviously if LO leaves, doesn't make the Lakers a lottery team, BUT it does make them less of a contender imo, is Buss willing to make the lakers the next Mavs? (50-60 win team with no chance of ever winning the finals) all for his pride and not letting players dictate what he should do?
I would say 1.
well they lost to the Spurs in 2003, then lost to Detroit in 2004...who knows, maybe they were done. Maybe it was the right decision to start over.
I think if everyone just got their together after 04, they could have won at least 1 more, maybe even 2.
IMO maybe they coulda gotten one more but if they waited a few more years to rebuild it would have taken longer to do so.
1 more
Maybe 1? They were absolutely dominant during the three-peat, but Spurs fans had a front row seat to the troubles of re-fitting a supporting cast around a superstar or stars on the fly. Even if you're willing to spend your rebuilding options are mostly going to be your late draft picks, unproven guys who are cheap FA options, and ring chasing vets willing to take a pay cut. Sometimes you get Manu, Stephen Jackson, and Robert Horry and other times you get Romain Sato, Matt Carroll, and Steve Smith.
With the money tied up in those two, could the FO could have found a supporting cast on par with that three-peat squad again? If I were a betting man I'd bet against it.
I say none.
nada more
unquestionably zero. they really only had 2, the series win over sacramento (kobe's forearm to bibby year) was an *
Like spurs 99 championship*?
0
without rick fox they were done
The playoffs were played fair and square, unlike the fixed series between Sacramento and LA.
I really don't see why the 99 le is given an * just because the regular season was like 30 games shorter. Big ing deal. The playoffs were still the same. And the Spurs dominated.
I concur.
Hard to predict this because the Shaq move had a domino effect on the team. Had Shaq stayed and the Lakers somehow convinced things were ok enough to keep Kobe, that could have preceded Karl Malone and Gary Payton also staying. And, there are some Laker fans convinced that they would have won the le if Karl Malone was healthy. At any rate, they were still good enough to make it to the NBA Finals, so if Shaq, Malone, GP all stayed, despite the rift between Shaq and Kobe, they could have still been a very good team.
A lot to assume, but if Shaq stayed, Kobe still re-signs, and Malone and Payton come back, they had the talent to challenge for a couple more seasons. If they fix the rift, Shaq relents control of the team to Kobe, they find chemistry, they could win a couple more rings in say 2005 and 2006. Again, a lot to assume. That team as constructed was similar to the current Celtics team in that they were obviously built to win "now" and the window was very close to being shut.
How many "could" they have won? Maybe two. How many "would" they have won, no telling for sure. Nothing would have been guaranteed, as they saw in the 2004 NBA Finals.
Really depends on what they do with the bench. Kobe and Shaq were never the problem, they lost in 03 because the team was running on fumes, and the role players were pretty much useless. Robert Horry played one of his worst playoff series in 03, convincing the Lakers FO that he was done. Rick Fox was pretty much done (retired after 04), Brian Shaq was done.
If the FO kept that crappy bench, then they would have never won another ring. However, if they could refill that bench with some useful role players, the team might win 1, maybe 2 more les.
As for Malone and Payton, they were short term fixes, they were at the end of their careers, and Malone and Payton another year older means that they would be another year less effective.
The reason Malone broke down was because he just wasn't supposed to carry that large of a load at that age. (Also because he was an asshole and deserved to retire ringless).
They had been done since 2001. 2002 the series was rigged, they lost in 2003 to the Spurs and 2004 to the Pistons.
0 because Shaq was not motivated. It was the trade to Miami that got him to get his ass in shape
Zero if Buss paid shaq what he wanted. The bench was absolutely terrible back then and Shaq would have no motivation to get back into shape like he did when he was traded.
The fact that Wade was a ROOKIE contract with Shaq allowed Riley to fill the roster good veterans. A weak Eastern conference had no chance. But if that Miami team was out West they would have been destroyed by San Antonio, thats for sure.
8
Probably one
no kidding...like 32 more games would have saved anyone from the Spurs in the playoffs?...they worked everyone.
depends how many ring hunters were around.
Depends on what you mean by rings.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
