i told you haters the LAL dynasty was far from over....

[kingjames23]

sorry, i dint know those guys were released... (but could still be resigned right?)i didnt know prolly because i havent had a computer or a t.v. for the past month (nunya business...)
but anyways, i didnt want yall to think that i feel the lakers will go unbeaten... but i doubt they will suffer more than one loss to any specific team in the regular season, perhaps even in the playoffs.

and as far as haters go... i think that anyone who makes fun of a team's name is a hater....

i doubt you can use the name "lackers" next year... because they are lacking nothing

[TravisLee324]

The reason why I don't like the Lakers is their management. If you look at what's been going on in the past year or so, you'll see why many people don't agree with how the Lakers get their players. First lets start off with Rick Fox, he decided to go to the Lakers for LESS MONEY to win a title. Not much argument here cuz he's stupid enough to sign for less money. Then there's the Brian Shaw deal. Now many of you say Malone and Payton signed for less money because they want a ring and they have nothing else to prove right? Well take a look at Brian Shaw, didn't he win his ring? Yes he did. What happened to him? The Lakers RELEASED HIM cuz his contract was a bit high, then resigned him to a new contract for LESS MONEY. Why does he want to be back with the Lakers when he already has his ring? He doesn't have to worry about money or not having a ring when he retires right? Yeah, cuz the Lakers management are so cheap that they have to go that low in order to keep winning titles. Then as of late, I heard that they're trying to sign back Robert Horry (for LESS MONEY AGAIN!). What's up with that? They didn't pick up his 5 million option so he is a Free Agent. Now what? Horry has to sign to a cheaper contract in order to play for the Lakers again. I hope people see this move coming, cuz I pretty much knew it when they didn't keep him in the first place. So lets see here, do you guys think it's right to release someone cuz their contract is too high, then sign them to a cheaper contract to keep a "dynasty team?" or not? Who here thinks the Lakers management are cheap? Please speak cuz everyone has a freedom of speech.

and as far as haters go... i think that anyone who makes fun of a team's name is a hater....

So Shaq calling the Sacramento Kings, the "Sacramento Queens," does that mean he's a "hater" too?

Travis

[air gordon]

i think kupchak (sp?) is cheap. if he spent some money last offseason, the lakers would have had a better chance at winning the title this season.

and this hater talk is just silly to me. seems like anyone who posts comments that aren't for the lakers cause are considered laker haters.

[Poollit]

1st of all, whats wrong with being a hater? We are all haters of something or someone.
Next Travis the Laker mangement is cheap, but who acres, thats how u run things, it's called buisness and being smart and saving ur money but getting the same results. I think they're very good. They're saving money and just working buisness magic. what would u do? Pay someone 10 million when u could pay them half of that and still keep them?

[Clinton]

Well said Poolit. I don't see why it gets to you Travis. Ohh I see, your not a Laker fan...

Horry won't be back. Fox has been in decline for like two years, mostly because of injuries and age I guess. George will be buried, he's a talented player though. Rush hasn't impressed anyone, and everybody (and I mean everybody) was bashing Walker and Madsen and suddenly all these players are solid and provide depth?

I'm not sure about Horry. Fox is still good enough to start and has a few more seasons left in him. George luckily plays the only postion they don't have a superstar at, small forward, so I don't think he will be buried, might not get many shots, but he will still get minutes. Rush is a 1 year pro, not many rookies impress in their first season, especially when they play the same position as the team's superstar. Walker is alright as a backup, it's when he starts and plays significant minutes that you see the flaws in his game. But I ain't sticking up for Madsen in any way, shape or form. You forgot to mention Fisher who is good enough to start on a number of teams and Pargo who is getting better by the day...

Compare this bench with others (Sacramento, Portland, Dallas, Golden State, Clippers, New Jersey for example) and you'll see this bench is far from deep.

Kings- Jackson, Clark, Turks, Pollard, Wallace- Deeper only because of Jackson and Clark.
Blazers- Patterson, Randolph, Dooling, Sabonis, Woods- Not that much better.
Mavs- Van Exel, Najera, Bradley, Abdul-Wahad, Griffin, Eschmeyer- Not much better
Warriors- Boykins, Dunleavy, Sura, Foyle, Mills, Fortson- Again not any better than LA...
Clips- Richardson, Dooling, Ely, Wilcox, Jaric, Piatkowski and Wang- This bench is not much better either and it will be worse after free agent signings...
Nets- Mutombo, Rogers, Williams, Harris, Slay, Collins, Armstrong- Again no better than LA.
If these are the deep teams, I think LA is up there....

[scubilete]

Mavs bench is better (you forgot the wizard Walt), but Lakers have 2 players in the summer league scoring over 20 points per game, from the bench. Not saying that they will score 20 next season but knowing someone like James is scoring 15 per game, makes me believe those 2 Lakers are good enough, and we can start saying the Lakers bench might be a solid one next season.

[air gordon]

please correct me if i'm wrong here...
the lakers had a subpar year in the regular season and lost in the playoffs not because of bryant or shaq, but because of their supporting cast was weak.

now enter malone and payton. fisher and horry (if he's resigned) go to the bench. fisher was very inconsistent last year and was clearly outplayed in the playoffs by opposing pg's. horry should have been a backup pf last year. he's no numbers guy but clearly his game is fading.

so pretty much its the same bench plus an inconsistent pg with shaky defense and a fading role player. can someone explain to me how all of sudden the lakers bench suddenly measures up with the best benches in the nba?

[Swoosh]

Agreed limp but in my eyes u r forgettin' an important factor, they lost becuz of their cockiness, and didn't worry about making the so called "switch", thats just wrong, it aint easy to make that "switch", u just cant be that cocky to relax all the regular season and then expect to knockout everybody, its not that simple in sports, shaq was not motivated and kobe let it get to his head i think, but you are right, if they had a decent supporting cast it would've made a big difference in lots of their games cuz kobe and shaq can do a lot but not everything(specially if they are injured).

[scubilete]

For those who didn't notice the 2 guys I'm talking about are not Fisher & Horry but Pargo & Rush .

Adding Fisher & Horry to the bench would be great for the Lakers, it's not like having Iverson/Webber coming from the bench but they can give some rest to the old guys without having to lose control of the game. Last season we had some Madsen getting there who knows much less than Horry or produce less than him. Lakers last season rookies as I stated are much better now and we got some guys from this draft who will be doing just good if they get the chances.

[Dirtdog1- David]

I wish people would stop making excuses for why the Lakers lost. "Switch" this, "switch" that, or even cockiness this cockiness that.
They simply got outplayed by a better team, who has now won 8 out the last 10 meetings and has been ahead 12 out the last 15 games going into the 4th quarter. A team who is deeper and played better in every facet of the game; with players that know there role and not too mention the 2 time MVP.
Some of you act like the Lakers lost because the Spurs got "Lucky", NO! They lost because they got outplayed. Lets remember it was not exactly a cake walk the season before, if not for the Spurs in-ability to hit an open shot, this would of happened one season sooner............... and I don't want to get into how the Kings got hosed.




David

[scubilete]

Spurs were a better team, no luck at all. But when you see people asking why the Lakers lost, is not trying to blame anything to them or looking for excuses but getting to know the facts that the Lakers needed to beat the Spurs, at least I don't think the Spurs were lucky.

Some think the Lakers lost cause they didn't take it seriously, I think that's wrong, the Lakers lost cause they were not deep enough to beat the Spurs.

[PoliceLineDoNotCross]

the lakers got eliminated from the playoffs because certain role players did not play up to potential.

[Bill Russell]

I think the Lakers lost because Shaq waas out of shape and stuff...

[Swoosh]

I am not seeking any excuses, im no laker fan at all, and i too believe they were outplayed, and yes the spurs were much deeper team, but i'm a realist and if shaq was motivated and kobe not that cocky it would have been a whole other season, and i think u just gotta admit that, if u play sports at all u just know that even in a game if u play with few motivation or too lax, u will in most of the cases not be able to turn things around, unless u are that far superiour, which the lakers weren't at all and thus lost, i play volleyball and we were championship team also for three straight years(the third not that succesful so u could say just two years but we were still in the run) and third season we got our asses kicked becuz of thinking it will all be too easy or turn things around after a set or cuple of matches but it just aint that simple,those factors can't be overlooked, its cuz of those things(and of course the depth of the spurs and depth lacking with lakers) that they got outplayed by the spurs, but the previous years kobe and shaq were motivated, had the same team(maybe horry played somewhat better)and they still managed to do the job but hey, i laughed my ass off when they lost, but its the managements own fault, and now they did a good job for a year or so and then it will be all over again cuz malone and payton arent gonna be the same players two years from now i think but we will c

[Andrew]

I wish people would stop making excuses for why the Lakers lost. "Switch" this, "switch" that, or even cockiness this cockiness that.

When I spoke about the "switch", I wasn't making an excuse, I was criticising that method of playing. I don't think you can take anything away from the Spurs, but the Lakers could have won that series. When you have two great teams it's only natural to search for reasons as to why the losing team lost. How else can that team avoid losing in the same manner again?

Some think the Lakers lost cause they didn't take it seriously, I think that's wrong, the Lakers lost cause they were not deep enough to beat the Spurs.

The Spurs seemed to get deeper as the season wore on as guys like Ginobili began playing better, but the Lakers still had basically the same roster they did in 2002. The only departed players were ones that didn't play much of a role anyway.

The Lakers still had Kobe, Shaq, George, Fox (though he was gone before the second round), Fisher, Walker, Shaw, Horry - the same core of eight players that won the title in 2002. Throw Madsen and Medvedenko into the mix and you have 83% of the 2002 championship team still intact.

[Jackal]

The Lakers still had Kobe, Shaq, George, Fox (though he was gone before the second round), Fisher, Walker, Shaw, Horry - the same core of eight players that won the title in 2002. Throw Madsen and Medvedenko into the mix and you have 83% of the 2002 championship team still intact.

All that mite be true but you've got to admit Andrew, the 2002 team was NOT anything close to the 2003 team, Horry who was a big factor in 2002 with his gamewinning shots, couldnt make a damn 3, Fisher has declinded since 2002, cudnt defend for shit...Fox was not there for his three's that dont come often but come when needed, Walker? hello, his name says it all...he's a waste of money cant do anything except rebound...he helped sumtimes no doubt but plzzzz get rid of that guy...Shaw? A tad too old to still be playing...George just wasnt the same after rolling his ankle, they had to go to guys like MADSEN and MEDVEDENKO... Medvedenko plays well but he can't defend for shit...if he could do that...he would get more playing time.
C'mon you cant say that the 2002 and 2003 teams are almost identical... .

No credit taken away from the other teams, they just played better than the Lakers...

Shaq just wasnt himself...hopefully he'll be back to his normal self next year .
In 2003 the thing that went wrong was, they relied too much on Shaq & Kobe since...the roleplayers just faded .

[Andrew]

Performance-wise the 2003 squad was inferior to the 2002 squad, but it was pretty much the same team on paper.