The Lake Show that could have been

[Andrew]

I guess it doesn't really matter to wonder "What If" in regards to the 2000-2002 Los Angeles Lakers teams. After all, they did win three straight titles. But there are some questions that could be asked. Would they have won without Phil Jackson? Would they have won if the Bulls' championship team had remained intact for another couple of years? Where would they be had they not been able to get Kobe Bryant in 1996? (After all, the Nets had considered taking him with the 8th pick)

I've been watching the 2000 All-Star Game, which features Shaq, Kobe and Eddie Jones (at the time playing for the Charlotte Hornets). A couple of years earlier, they had all represented the Lakers in the 1998 All-Star game. In between those two All-Star games, Jones was traded to Charlotte along with Elden Campbell for Glen Rice. Bob Costas mentioned possible regrets regarding the deal, and wondered aloud what might have been had the Lakers kept Jones and Campbell.

Ultimately, the Lakers went 67-15 and won the title that year and a couple more the following two seasons, but it remains an interesting question. Would the Lakers be in the same position they are today - just a year removed from three consecutive championships - had they not made the Jones/Campbell for Rice deal?

Also consider the Nick Van Exel for Tony Battie deal made prior to the 1998/99 season. What if that never happened?

Consider the lineup they could have fielded:

C: Shaq
F: Campbell
F: Bryant/Jones
G: Jones/Bryant
G: Nick Van Exel

Assuming no one else was traded or waived and various players still signed with the Lakers in the 1999 offseason, the bench would have consisted of Derek Fisher, Rick Fox, Robert Horry, Devean George, Brian Shaw, A.C. Green and Ron Harper, with guys like Tyronn Lue, Travis Knight and John Salley rounding out the roster.

And let's assume that Phil Jackson still took the head coaching job.

That's a pretty impressive roster with a great coach. From top to bottom, it's even impressive compared to the current Laker squad. But could it win a championship (or three)?

I believe they could, but it would depend on Kobe and EJ being able to play together. Could each be effective playing alongside one another? I'd say that they could, though they'd have to sacrifice some shots. Shaq would be Shaq, and in Campbell he'd have a little more help. Van Exel would have to look to pass more often than looking for his own shot. The bench is a nice mix of veterans and youth.

I'd even go so far as to suggest that this squad might have fared better during the regular season than the 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 Lakers. Whether they could top the 67-15 mark of the 1999/2000 season is uncertain, but I believe they could have done better than 56-26 and 58-24 the following years. Not that those are terrible records, but a few of the Lakers' opponents did get deeper in an effort to topple them.

So, does anyone else think that this "Lake Show that could have been" would have been as successful or more successful than the Laker teams that did win three in a row? And in particular, would Laker fans prefer to see this team rather than the squads that have been featured the last few years?

[Ruff Ryder]

Well, the reason Nick the Quick got shipped was because the Lakers had trouble sharing the ball. It probably would have been less successful. Look where Kobe is right now. One of the best in the L. Shaq is the most dominent center in the L. Now add Eddie Jones who was averaging close to 20 ppg then. Nick Van Exel with 15+ ppg. Shaq would be complaining how he doesnt get the ball enough. In EC's last year with LA he averaged 7 ppg. WHen he left to go to charlotte he was up to about 15ppg. The whole starting lineup averages about 90 ppg. Only Phil Jackson would have a chance to fix the problems.

[ShowMeTheMoney]

Interesting.

If EJ and EC stayed in LA:
Assuming Phil took the job, yes, I think they still could have won a few rings.
Without Phil, I seriously doubt if they would even land in the finals.

I think Phil Jackson sort of helped a lot in the maturity of the Lakers. I mean before he arrived in Laker-land the Lakers were, in my book, one of the under achieving teams in the NBA. Before Phil I think Shaq was a bit busy making movies and rap albums.

[scubilete]

Would they have won without Phil Jackson?

No.

Would they have won if the Bulls' championship team had remained intact for another couple of years?

If Phil was still with the Bulls, probably not.

Where would they be had they not been able to get Kobe Bryant in 1996? (After all, the Nets had considered taking him with the 8th pick)

The Lakers didn't draft Kobe, the Hornets did. No matter where Kobe was heading to, the Lakers were going to target him.

Would the Lakers be in the same position they are today - just a year removed from three consecutive championships - had they not made the Jones/Campbell for Rice deal?

We all know the reason why Jones was traded, knowing Kobe would have been great playing SF, he loves to shoot & I don't consider he would like the idea. Also, if Jones wouldn't have been traded, Kobe wouldn't be the same. However, the Lakers would have been much better than they were the last 3 years with Shaq-Campbell-Kobe-Jones-whoever else but regarding championships, they would have won only if healthy. Remember I don't try to use excuses like almost everyone does, but last year Lakers had Shaq injured during the season, Kobe playing hurt & still in the playoffs doing it like that, with Fox out. So they would have been better if they were healthy.

I believe they could, but it would depend on Kobe and EJ being able to play together.

That would be the key, we all know EJ could share the ball, but Kobe never does, it was really disappointing the Lakers letting EJ go, but at least that worked out good. Look at the Warriors, they Let Jamison go so things open up a little for Dunleavy, I yet don't think Dunleavy has filled that position but at least they're paying Dunleavy a bunch less money.

So, does anyone else think that this "Lake Show that could have been" would have been as successful or more successful than the Laker teams that did win three in a row?

That team would have been more successful without Van Exel. Taking out Van Exel & keeping Campbell & Jones. Also, the Lakers 3peat team was not that great, it was just a matter of Shaq & Phil trying to keep everyone happy on the court. Also, not as many injuries.

And in particular, would Laker fans prefer to see this team rather than the squads that have been featured the last few years?

I believe nobody cares as far you're winning, I mean, I consider the Lakers the worst team to win a championship but they did the last 2 years before last season, so if you put the Lake show Van Exel was running, without championships, I'd say no. I'd rather have these winning Lakers than any other going out in the 2nd round.

[Fresh8]

As a Laker fan- the idea of could of having a starting line-up of Shaq-Campbell-Kobe-Jones-Van Exel is tandelising....but only IF it would have worked (The team playing as a team in games)....I can see that having all the scorers on one team will cause trouble...Shaq/Kobe's problems seemed to reappear this season but they've settled it but if you have two other high-scoring guards into the same situation it could spell chaos...

Also, you should consider that Kobe may NOT be one of the best in the League if he had been playing ball with these guys...It's sorta- IMO- like T-mac leavin' Toronto for Orlando...sort of....

And I believe that if this fictional Lakers Squad could have dominated the NBA plus if you think about it....wouldn't it be cool if the Lakers had picked up Gilbert Arenas with their late first round draft pick???

[Matt]

ultimately players want a ring right if that team played TEAM ball no other team could compete with them. But they value a championship and being the 'man' more than a team championship it seems. I dont get it, self over team......i guess thats how life is, everyone thinks about self preservation first, as a natural reaction rather than the group

[Bill Russell]

A Kobe/Van Exel backcourt wouldn't work. See Nick's histrionics...

Remember Jerry West was their GM at the time... This guy's wiser than all...

[Andrew]

I dont get it, self over team......i guess thats how life is, everyone thinks about self preservation first, as a natural reaction rather than the group

Egos are a difficult thing to keep in check. Consider that many players who aren't stars in the NBA have been "The Man" elsewhere: high school, college, Europe, etc. Toni Kukoc had a little trouble adjusting to life as a sixth man after being a celebrated player in Europe. He didn't make a huge fuss about it, but it was a blow to his ego. That's understandable. It's how we humans work.

Consider guys like Dana Barros, who was one of the top scorers in college but was never "The Man" for an NBA team. Kurt Thomas is a solid role player and is putting up nice numbers in New York, but his college career was much more impressive. Alan Henderson had a few good years in Atlanta but has pretty much fallen out of the rotation these days: in college, he led his division in scoring and rebounding.

Some guys hit the NBA and remain the most important player on the team, while others accept lesser roles. Not everyone takes that fact very well. As nice as team success is, I'm sure deep down a lot of players would love to have the opportunity to have better individual performances.

[Swoosh]

I'd like to say something about that "self over team", imho i believe i do get it, if i were a such a talented player i would try to be the star of the league in my first five to seven pro years too, and see how far i could get on myself and some not too chabby teammates, not because this is about me but about making money actually, if you are a star you are destined for the big bucks(assuming my career dont end by injury or something).
And not that the money is such a big part but, you have to think about this:
assume i was a t-mac like high school kid and went straight to the pros and i didn't graduate at college(i know you can still get your diploma but lets exclude this for now), i have nothing to fall back to, and the average age that a nba player can play at "star"-level at max lies between 33-35 years(there are exceptions of course but 34 seems like a nice age, and im talking bout superstar players, so i assume they can play at a high level a little longer than the average role player), this is purely an estimation so dont get all worked up about it . Lets say i'd like to end in beauty to with the team i started with and i retire at the age of 37(not everybody is karl malone ), what am i going to do after that if i didn't make some big bucks so i could live on that money the rest of my life. Ok, i admit it's a little narrow minded to think after the age of 37 an ex-nba player's life almost "ends" and cant get a job anywhere(he could go coaching or announcing etc.), but the fact remains he's gotta live on that one big contract he got for the rest of his life.
Ok, now where i left off, if i've been the star for many years and made some bucks, i can start thinking about a title right? Just like GP and Malone did(but personally i would already try to do this at a much earlier stage), so i already have proven i can be the man and dont mind as much of giving up some personal benefits for the team, every player has to go trough a learning proces anyway(including character, unless his ego is too big).
Ok, i know you all can say, i would try to get an ring as early as possible and so on and so on, but i hope it's clear that what i just typed are NOT my beliefs or my attitude towards this, i am just trying to imagine what a star player COULD do when he is in that position, so ultimately just trying to understand the logic, cuz when u are that talented, i dont see anything that wrong in being a leader and letting your ego speak for A COUPLE OF YEARS(i believe eventually every player's goal is getting a ring).
Of course i also touched a delicate subject here with player salaries and their height, which is another debate(which i wish not to discuss in this thread), should their salaries be that high? Of course i didnt mean ot say that a fine role player doesnt get paid enough to survive after his nba career, im just trying to put myself in a star's place.