PDA

View Full Version : Ok Stephen A / Mason / radio trolls, let me spell it out: Jeannie Buss is the problem



Sssmush
04-29-2016, 01:23 AM
Starting with the continual triumphant mention of Jim's pledge to turn over basketball operations if the team wasn't progressing or contending within "a few years" and the continual boneheaded assertion that "Jeannie should just wake up and fire that Jim Buss."

Ok... first of all, as Skip Bayless astutely notes, Jim Buss is a co-owner of the Lakers.

And... Realistically... behind the scenes... Jeannie and Jim are probably 50/50 in terms of ownership and contractual/managerial power in the team. In fact Jim might even have the tie-breaker.

If Jeannie has ever asserted in an interview that she has hire and fire power over Jim, that was either her mouth/emotions getting out ahead of actual reality, OR it was a disagreement about which side of the organization ultimately predominates, the "business side" (whatever that is) or "the basketball side."

I would say that just the mere fact that Jeannie has made any assertion like this in the past, and then coyly backed away from it, either aware or unaware that she has no power to fire her brother and co-owner from his position as president of basketball operations which Jerry Buss explicitly placed him into, just shows you what a lightweight she actually is.

Mason and Stephen A trumpeted the fact that Jeannie told a reporter that she was unaware that Byron Scott had been fired. And stated that was reason why everybody else should be fired and the walking coat rack mustache Phil Jackson rushed back in. WRONG.

Think about it: First off, Jeannie doesn't know Byron's going to get fired. Ok. So she didn't ask. She didn't have any connections in the front office. She doesn't have any inside sources. She doesn't have any weight with Mitch Kupchak, or any gravitas to where they would at least CC her as they file Scott's termination papers. Ok, whatever. She's in Barbados or somewhere, again whatever, understandable on some level.

BUT, when asked by a reporter, that she gives a stunned statement that she had "no idea"' Byron had been fired, or would be... Ok to me that just spells out [B]LIGHTWEIGHT. In big giant letters.

Because, why? Because instead of knowing how to handle the press, or realizing it might make the team look bad, or give fodder for critics, she just "blah blah blah I just had no idea." Again, LIGHTWEIGHT. This should be self-explanatory. For a number of reasons that I do not need to enumerate.

And then... the fact that YEAR AFTER YEAR she brings in or entertains these ridiculous and depressing Phil rumours. Which to have any reality would imply firing Mitch Kupchak (a widely respected top notch GM with many rings who is the protege of Jerry West) as well as her brother and CO-OWNER of the team who also has NBA rings and has a solid professional no-nonsense demeanor. And then bringing in this giant media-whore Phil Jackson who is floundering ridiculously in New York, will probably be run out of New York in fact, and has actually made the Knicks WORSE than they were and realistically the Knicks still have no path to the Eastern Conference Finals within the foreseeable next ten years. But she would fire everybody and have Phil start a new rebuilding project in Los Angeles and do everything she could to hand over complete control of the franchise to him, even though legally and contractually she is prohibited from doing precisely that one thing. LIGHTWEIGHT.

I mean honestly I am a bit embarassed as a Laker fan. First off, Jeannie is perhaps the highest ranking female executive in professional sports, and certainly in the NBA. She is a legit owner, and runs the business side, presumably, for the number one team in the NBA.

Yet all we ever hear about, for 5 solid years now, is that she is pining away trying to hire her boyfriend back to ANY position in the team. Never mind the fact that she is not able to do so (LIGHTWEIGHT) but just the fact that continually tries and does this Romeo and Juliet routine year after year after year making noises in the media about if only she could hire her boyfriend back to coach/GM/president the Lakers or whatever.

It is just ridiculous. And yes ok maybe I am writing some not nice things right now and for that I am sorry however these espn radio trolls are just so aggravating with this nonsense. So... keep spewing the nonsense, that is fine. But just so we all understand it is nonsense.

In what universe does a competent president/owner fecklessly fail at hiring her own boyfriend again and again to the highest position within the organization she runs, yet every year try again? What kind of example or signal does that send? How can we have any respect for a top female sports executive who all she can think about is to hire back her boyfriend so he can tell her what to do? I mean am I taking crazy pills here? You guys seriously think this is ok? To me it just seems ridiculous. Oh, and LIGHTWEIGHT.

If she had any sense she would realize that Jim Buss is actually her greatest strength in running/owning the Lakers for the longterm. She should work with him, support him, put loyalty first and make that work. At the very least she shouldn't carelessly or unintentionally send the message yet again that she can't even be bothered to communicate with him about the day to day machinations of the team.

Have a nice day

Sssmush
04-29-2016, 03:16 AM
Seriously.

If Jeannie Buss has any more farfetched plans to rework the Lakers front office, it should really involve Popovich or somebody... ANYBODY else at this point than other bringing up Phil Jackson yet again, who is a clear conflict of interest and would be a totally unprofessional decision, and oh yeah is also under contract with the New York Knicks currently, i mean seriously both of them, wtf. Like what do Knick fans think about Phil openly discussing he would like to rejoin the Lakers. Like you paid him $100M to draft Porzingis and I still say Winslow or Cauley Stein are better.

Dade County
04-29-2016, 06:05 AM
This report seems to have an agenda behind it. Buss needs to step aside & have someone else run the team.

Scoots
04-29-2016, 11:03 AM
Basketball people should be running things ... until they are every move is suspect.

JasonJohnHorn
04-29-2016, 01:37 PM
I love how people try to blame Jeanie for $#!T her brother is responsible for.

The team sucks because Jim sucks and Mitch sucks.

Jim is the one who put a timeline on himself to turn the team around, and said he would step down if he didn't accomplish that in a set number of years.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/24533828/lakers-jim-buss-ill-quit-if-club-doesnt-contend-in-3-or-4-years

2014: If the team is not contending, he will quit his job.

That is from Jim; not Jeanie

Sssmush
04-29-2016, 03:15 PM
Basketball people should be running things ... until they are every move is suspect.

How is Jim Buss not a "basketball person"?

The son of Jerry Buss... Handful of NBA championship rings... Grew up with the Lakers, hanging around courtside at all the Showtime championships and backstage everywhere...

How is this not a "basketball person"? Especially when compared to a lot of these analytics guys or businessman owners who had ZERO contact with the game and probably zero knowledge and interest in the game until ten years ago?

Jim Buss, the guy who has been quietly working alongside Mitch Kupchak, hall of fame GM, for 15+ years and whose fingerrints were all over the Pau-Bynum-Kobe titles in 2009-2010. The guy whose knowledge of the game pisses all over these young hotshot golden boy male model flavour of the month coaches like Brad Stevens.

Brad Stevens, who was playing with Legos while Jim Buss was caddying for Magic Johnson.

Seriously... The nerve of these media nerds to push this dumb narrative about Jim must go. To feed the populist anger or discontent by emphasizing that Jim inherited the team, that his power in the team comes from his father and thst isn't "fair." That hold out Jeannie as the alternative, because she is a "mommy" figure and less threatening.

Oooh. Jeannie good, Jim bad.

**** you. You call that "sports journalism"? Where did you learn your trade?

Sssmush
04-29-2016, 03:25 PM
I love how people try to blame Jeanie for $#!T her brother is responsible for.

The team sucks because Jim sucks and Mitch sucks.
The
Jim is the one who put a timeline on himself to turn the team around, and said he would step down if he didn't accomplish that in a set number of years.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/24533828/lakers-jim-buss-ill-quit-if-club-doesnt-contend-in-3-or-4-years

2014: If the team is not contending, he will quit his job.

That is from Jim; not Jeanie


Understand thst the Lakers were tanking. You poster. You fan.

The Lakers were tanking. Do you know what tanking is? And now Kobe is gone (and by all accounts Kibe's 3 year ridiculo $80m farewell "tour" was all Jeannie and not Jim and Mitch) and now the Lakers are in a GREAT, maybe even the best, position to rebuild. How is that failing? You fan. You poster.

As I've said before, Jim and Mitch have successfully pulled off what Sam Hinkie was bragging about doing in WSJ after he failed and got fired.

Jim/Mitch >>>> Sam Hinkkie

Jim/Mitch >>>> Dolan/Phil Jackson

Jim/Mitch >>>> Mark Cuban

Jim/Mitch >>>> Ballmer/Dic Rivers

Jim/Mitch >>>> Gordon/Lebron

Jim/Mitch >>>> Darryl Morey


Sorry. That's just how it is. Talk to me in a couple years when the Lakers are racking championships, the rest of the league crying isnt fair, and Kobe on TNT talking trash and criticizing the new Laker threepeat, picking sgaindt us.

Out, Mamba

beasted86
04-29-2016, 03:52 PM
Writing a 10 paragraph essay with bold, and all CAPS and such doesn't override the facts.

As someone point out before:


"I was laying myself on the line by saying, if this doesn't work in three to four years, if we're not back on the top and the definition of top means contending for the Western Conference, contending for a championship then I will step down because that means I have failed. I don't know if you can fire yourself if you own the team but what I would say is I'd walk away and you guys figure out who's going to run basketball operations because I obviously couldn't do the job.
http://touch.latimes.com/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=NBA%20National%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=GMIB%204%2F20%2F2014#section/-1/article/p2p-79962388/

It's really straight forward. Really-really straight forward. You know those TurboTax commercials where they have an expert/genius sit besides a person to read simple instructions for them? That's not needed here.

That article was dated 04/19/14. So, realistically he has almost 2 more years to make a contender out of the team. They currently have no head coach and are the 2nd worst team in the NBA record wise.

If he can he can turn it around in 2 years, that would be the most miraculous turn since the 2009 Thunder who won 23 games made it to the 2011 WCF.

But if they aren't contending, then he and the rest of the Buss trust should absolutely be open to a President + GM shake up of the team. Really simple, and I didn't even have write anything in bold or all caps.

Sssmush
04-30-2016, 03:31 PM
Writing a 10 paragraph essay with bold, and all CAPS and such doesn't override the facts.

As someone point out before:


http://touch.latimes.com/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=NBA%20National%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=GMIB%204%2F20%2F2014#section/-1/article/p2p-79962388/

It's really straight forward. Really-really straight forward. You know those TurboTax commercials where they have an expert/genius sit besides a person to read simple instructions for them? That's not needed here.

That article was dated 04/19/14. So, realistically he has almost 2 more years to make a contender out of the team. They currently have no head coach and are the 2nd worst team in the NBA record wise.

If he can he can turn it around in 2 years, that would be the most miraculous turn since the 2009 Thunder who won 23 games made it to the 2011 WCF.

But if they aren't contending, then he and the rest of the Buss trust should absolutely be open to a President + GM shake up of the team. Really simple, and I didn't even have write anything in bold or all caps.

Sure ok. Of course that is right.

And that is two years from now, and is a statement of good faith Jim gsve when the fever pitch of overthrow the Buss family was at its height, when Magic johnson was going on Stephen A and trashing Jin Buss every week, phil And Phil Jackson hadnt taken Knicks job yet, and was campaigning furiously in the media to be Lakers "president", undercutting every move they made and etoding Laker fan base. Just because "Phil@, AND you had Steve Mason going on these absurd anti Jim rants for hours everyday on the radio, transparently trying to inflame the eorking class fans and painting Jim as the indeserving idiot son of out divine patriarch Jerry Buss, the evil usurper to Phil Jackson's noble Hamlet. All while tearing down Jerry Buss's eishes and legacy, and striking out at private ownership, often sounding like some kind of Che Guvara "these are our Lakers!" What a bunch of bull****. Even he must realize this, and yeah ok the job/show is to have fake arguments and debate. But ok, that is almost literally the precise cladsical definition of a hypocrite. But whatever.

That Jim could select ( based on his own emotional interview) that he vould improve mattersby hiring some one else for his responsibilities, domeone else to facilitate Mitch, someone Mitch would like as well who brings something good... If Jim wants to do that it is up to him. If he doesnt, also fine.

Jeannnie Buss if she was smart would give jim full vote of confidence, turn DOWN jim's pledge, and say "no we need this guy to be part of the team long term." Continuity.

That the season ends and there are Phil rumours, stephen A shouting Jim must go, everybody frantic because they know Lakers might be good next year and all their bitter naysaying look line fools suddenly.,, all this negativity doesnt help Jeannie at all. Her cjance tohold onto the team is with her and her brother as nrother-sister owners running domething special. So Jeannie is really the one who should be smart and reslis the strong slliancewith Jim Buss--them against the world.

The idea of bringing back her biyfriend Phil is a clear conflict of interest and blatantly unprofessional. If you really want to push for a new president, go sfter Popovich or JerryWest or theToronto guy or something. Phil isnt even a good GM it is just embarassing at this point

MTar786
04-30-2016, 05:35 PM
i guarantee the lakers will be contending in 2 years from now. Although i would still like jim gone.

Kush McDaniels
04-30-2016, 06:16 PM
They should both back off

europagnpilgrim
04-30-2016, 06:24 PM
Had that CP3 deal went through all you experts would be claiming how great of a owner he is and blah blah blah, but since it didn't he sucks right? CP3/Kobe/Gasol/Howard would have worked no matter how stubborn Kobe was because he would have deferred to the HOF PG, had Nash been remotely healthy he would have done the same but not to the extent of the fiery CP3, perfect mentality backcourt to get the most out of the better version of Bynum/Gasol in Howard/Gasol, they would have made a couple WCF trips worst case scenario

its not like he hasn't tried, and im not a lakers fanatic or nothing of that nature, just a true messenger who analyzes both sides of the coin

JasonJohnHorn
04-30-2016, 07:26 PM
Understand thst the Lakers were tanking. You poster. You fan.

The Lakers were tanking. Do you know what tanking is? And now Kobe is gone (and by all accounts Kibe's 3 year ridiculo $80m farewell "tour" was all Jeannie and not Jim and Mitch) and now the Lakers are in a GREAT, maybe even the best, position to rebuild. How is that failing? You fan. You poster.

As I've said before, Jim and Mitch have successfully pulled off what Sam Hinkie was bragging about doing in WSJ after he failed and got fired.

Jim/Mitch >>>> Sam Hinkkie

Jim/Mitch >>>> Dolan/Phil Jackson

Jim/Mitch >>>> Mark Cuban

Jim/Mitch >>>> Ballmer/Dic Rivers

Jim/Mitch >>>> Gordon/Lebron

Jim/Mitch >>>> Darryl Morey


Sorry. That's just how it is. Talk to me in a couple years when the Lakers are racking championships, the rest of the league crying isnt fair, and Kobe on TNT talking trash and criticizing the new Laker threepeat, picking sgaindt us.

Out, Mamba

All you did was state your opinion and act like they were facts.

Do you have sources for anything you said? I gave a source. In 2014, Jim said if they weren't contending in 3-4 years, he'd step down.

Who hired Scott? Mitch and Jim. Who was giving Kobe all the shots this year? Scott, who was hired by Mitch and Jim. Who is Scott reporting to? Mitch. Who does Mitch report to? Jim How is Jeanie in ANY of that? She's no where in the chain of command. She handles business. Jim handles basketball. Did she market Kobe's farewell season? Of course. Because Jim put $#!T on the floor and there was nothing else she could do to sell tickets or get ratings.

You are acting like Jim and Mitch already have results. They don't.

Now you can either have a conversation about the fact here, or you can spout out your opinions and act like they are facts. What is sounds like is you are Jim and Mitch's best friend and you are trying to come up with excuses for them.


The team sucks, and as it stands right now, they don't have a franchise player. If they don't get one in this draft, or don't sign one in free agency, they won't be contending next year, or the year after, which means Jim will, according his own words (not Jeanie's), step down. That is the time-line he set for himself.

You say they are better than Morey? Morey signed Dwight away from the Lakers and has a team in the playoffs. They are better than Ballmer and Doc? They have a team in the playoffs. Better than Dolan and Jackson? Jackson's Knicks got more wins this year. Better than Gordon LeBron? They are on pace to back-to-back finals appearances. Better than Cuban? Cuban has a playoff team.

Maybe you didn't realize this, but your projections for where the Lakers will be in 3 or 3 years are facts, they are guesses. And for the record, the season isn't a competition to see who will win the lottery; it's a competition to see who will win a championship.

Tanking? Yes. Go ahead and boast about an owner and a GM who lose on purpose to get a high draft pick. Like that takes any brains at all.


Please. Don't blame Jeanie for Jim and Mitch's mistakes, and in the same breathe same they are losing on purpose as part of a tanking strategy.


This is just some incoherent and delusional rambling.

Use facts. Not opinions.

Jeanie's not the one who brought in Mike Brown and fired him five games into a season. Then brought in 'Antoni and lost Howard. She's not the one who gave up three first-round picks for a 39-year-old point guard. Or the one who alienated Gasol. She's not the one who gave Marc Gasol away in a trade when a future second or first would have done in his place.

Don't put Jim's and Mitch's failings on her. It's lame.

Facts. Facts. Facts.

Hit me up in three years when the Lakers re struggling to be the 8th seed to tell me I' wrong again.

'Out'.

Sssmush
04-30-2016, 08:40 PM
All you did was state your opinion and act like they were facts.

Do you have sources for anything you said? I gave a source. In 2014, Jim said if they weren't contending in 3-4 years, he'd step down.

Who hired Scott? Mitch and Jim. Who was giving Kobe all the shots this year? Scott, who was hired by Mitch and Jim. Who is Scott reporting to? Mitch. Who does Mitch report to? Jim How is Jeanie in ANY of that? She's no where in the chain of command. She handles business. Jim handles basketball. Did she market Kobe's farewell season? Of course. Because Jim put $#!T on the floor and there was nothing else she could do to sell tickets or get ratings.

You are acting like Jim and Mitch already have results. They don't.

Now you can either have a conversation about the fact here, or you can spout out your opinions and act like they are facts. What is sounds like is you are Jim and Mitch's best friend and you are trying to come up with excuses for them.


The team sucks, and as it stands right now, they don't have a franchise player. If they don't get one in this draft, or don't sign one in free agency, they won't be contending next year, or the year after, which means Jim will, according his own words (not Jeanie's), step down. That is the time-line he set for himself.

You say they are better than Morey? Morey signed Dwight away from the Lakers and has a team in the playoffs. They are better than Ballmer and Doc? They have a team in the playoffs. Better than Dolan and Jackson? Jackson's Knicks got more wins this year. Better than Gordon LeBron? They are on pace to back-to-back finals appearances. Better than Cuban? Cuban has a playoff team.

Maybe you didn't realize this, but your projections for where the Lakers will be in 3 or 3 years are facts, they are guesses. And for the record, the season isn't a competition to see who will win the lottery; it's a competition to see who will win a championship.

Tanking? Yes. Go ahead and boast about an owner and a GM who lose on purpose to get a high draft pick. Like that takes any brains at all.


Please. Don't blame Jeanie for Jim and Mitch's mistakes, and in the same breathe same they are losing on purpose as part of a tanking strategy.


This is just some incoherent and delusional rambling.

Use facts. Not opinions.

Jeanie's not the one who brought in Mike Brown and fired him five games into a season. Then brought in 'Antoni and lost Howard. She's not the one who gave up three first-round picks for a 39-year-old point guard. Or the one who alienated Gasol. She's not the one who gave Marc Gasol away in a trade when a future second or first would have done in his place.

Don't put Jim's and Mitch's failings on her. It's lame.

Facts. Facts. Facts.

Hit me up in three years when the Lakers re struggling to be the 8th seed to tell me I' wrong again.

'Out'.


Again, they were tanking. And just as so many of the analytics crowd were siding somewhat with Sam Hinkie, and agreeing with some of the points he made in his WSJ farewell letter... I mean we have to agree that Jim and Mitch are in fact (or have in fact) carried out the "Hinkie strategy" better than Hinkie did. They did it. AND they picked better players--D'Angelo Russell has nex-gen star written all over him, Randle looks like a future all star and his trade value is huge right now, + Nance, Clarkson, Black and a few other guys looking good. AND the Lakers were actually praised by the end of the season for having a spectacular golden season celebrating their championship legacy and dominated the media and were a huge phenomenon with fans.

So for all Sam Hinkie's insights into how to game the system, and how to overcome the limitations of the current CBA, the unfair salary cap, and free agency rules... Sam Hinkie is stewing somewhere in Vegas most likely, untouchable in the league for at least a year, and meanwhile Jim and Mitch are getting ready to launch their new monster team and probably/might even have the #1 overall pick in the draft.

OH... And now with Kobe gone... This overblown overexaggerated narrative of how "the Lakers have lost their shine for free agents" will just go right out the window.

Right now, at this very moment, the very best free agents in the league, even up to Lebron James and Kevin Durant, are looking HARD at Los Angeles as a very real landing spot with $60M in cap space this year alone and a fresh clean slate on the biggest and most glamorous media stage in the NBA and even the world. BOOM.

My point here is that Jeannie should strengthen ties with Jim. It makes her stronger. Jim and Jeannie are stronger as a team, as brother and sister. I think it's probably what Jerry Buss wanted to happen, and it's just clear that they could be a very powerful dynamic duo working/owning together the Los Angeles Lakers and carrying forward that Buss legacy into the future era. Hiring Luke Walton is a really strong continuation of that.

I agree with Max Kellerman that the best criticisms of Mitch and Jim are that they didn't get trade value back for Pau Gasol and Dwight Howard. And of course you could say the Nash trade, the Brown firing (huge mistake I thought), and the D'Antoni hiring (I was pro-D'Antoni but in retrospect he was not going to get it done with Dwight and Kobe).

However, if you think about it, Kobe blocked or initiated all those moves. And Kobe's Valdemort like presence hung over the team and really limited what they could do for four solid years -- three of which Kobe was completely useless, and the first of which he was completely uncoachable and wore himself into the ground in some kind of weird ego trance where it was not enough just for the Lakers to win but where Kobe had to score every single shot himself. Culminating in him making two free throws with a severed Achilles and walking off heroically in the last game of the season. *wheeeeeeeeeeeee* (light clapping)

1. Pau Gasol : when his trade value was at it's height (after the playoff loss to Dallas following the most recent Lakers multi-championship/Finals run) Kobe would absolutely NOT have let Pau get traded. And while we can rationalize that Pau was a great brand for the Lakers, if they would've stripped it down back then and got some 1st round picks or whatever that would've been value.

2. Dwight Howard : Again, Kobe. Not only was Kobe intent on owning Howard (who is anyway somewhat overrated) but Kobe would also have skewered the team in the media if they had traded Howard away. So while in retrospect a Howard sign and trade could've been good, they probably thought cap space could be valuable and also had a chance to re-sign Howard. That Howard would run not walk to Houston and leave $30M guaranteed on the table was unexpected, but the Lakers could have done a sign and trade. But again, Kobe is in the corner stamping his feet saying "bring me superstars bring me championships."

3. Firing Mike Brown: Huge mistake, firing the best Laker coach with the best record in the last five years five games into the season. Obviously, Kobe ran Mike Brown out of town plain and simple. Why? We can guess/observe the Mike Brown was implementing team ball (Princeton offense) and making the team play defense and share the ball on offense. Deferring much less to Kobe and challenging Kobe even much more than Phil Jackson. So then we get the Kobe stare animations etc and Kobe stamping his feet backstage and next thing you know Mike Brown is out. Ironically, had the Lakers kept Mike Brown, Kobe very well might've seen another Finals and also not severed his Achilles.

4. D'Antoni : D'Antoni you could blame on Jim/Mitch, although it did seem like a good hire to me. However clearly Kobe was just not getting with the program, the offense was not flowing, and Kobe was just hero-balling it night in night out all season. Also Nash was worthless and Dwight was a dog. But Phil Jackson, for all the publicity, was not even really willing to be the coach anyway. Like you interview someone for a coaching position and he counters by suggesting you fire yourself as owner and GM and make him president of the team and he will do some consulting and pick you a coach. Ughhhhhh, no thanks. You suck as a GM Phil.

Sssmush
04-30-2016, 08:54 PM
Had that CP3 deal went through all you experts would be claiming how great of a owner he is and blah blah blah, but since it didn't he sucks right? CP3/Kobe/Gasol/Howard would have worked no matter how stubborn Kobe was because he would have deferred to the HOF PG, had Nash been remotely healthy he would have done the same but not to the extent of the fiery CP3, perfect mentality backcourt to get the most out of the better version of Bynum/Gasol in Howard/Gasol, they would have made a couple WCF trips worst case scenario

its not like he hasn't tried, and im not a lakers fanatic or nothing of that nature, just a true messenger who analyzes both sides of the coin


Yes you are right. It is totally results oriented to say why didn't they win a title in the Mike Brown D'Antoni era. The Dallases and Clevelands and Minnesotas of the world had to go all out and make themselves looked nakedly corrupt and scheming by forcing the league to "veto" (wtf???) the CP3 trade. Which oh by the way was a far better deal than New Orleans got from the Clippers.

The Lakers were swinging for the fences and might've gone on another multi-title run. Or who knows it might've failed. But as GM'ing and ownershipping it was top notch.

After that, the Nash trade was an expensive reach and Nash if he was honest could've told them he was a walking bone-spur, but whatever. You've got Dwight Howard, you've got Pau, you've got Kobe Bryant barking behind you to get it done, a solid Nash looks like a great combo for a one or two year run. So again they are swinging for the fences; yes they failed and have to get some blame for that but the Lakers were the top rated team pre-season and within the limitations of running a team with Kobe Bryant on it, again they were a top notch front office.

Now we tanked for 2 1/2 years after Kobe fell apart and Jeannie re-signed him to a $50M "farewell tour" contract. So we've been absolutely tanking. Byron Scott should get another job, for sure, and the rest of us should understand the tank was intentional and not grade it based on results--unless those results were to get 3 top five picks in three years and clear 100% of cap space and vault immediately back into contention.

beasted86
04-30-2016, 11:59 PM
Jeannnie Buss if she was smart would give jim full vote of confidence, turn DOWN jim's pledge, and say "no we need this guy to be part of the team long term." Continuity.

This is the most asinine logic ever. Let me paint an analogy.

A woman tells her husband she refuses to allow anyone else to teach their children and will instead homeschool them herself. She vows her children will pass the assessment test for at the end of the school year. She agrees if she couldn't teach them well enough to pass then she failed as a teacher and will let her husband make the decisions from there forward how they should be schooled. Addressing this analogy... you are saying the husband should just keep them at homeschool for 'continuity reasons'? He should not instead do what's best so that the children can advance?

I don't understand your logic at all. If Jim set his own standard of success and set his own timeline, then he should stand by his word. If there is any 'pledge of faith' to be made, it would be allowing him to maintain input on his successor, even though he said he'd walk away completely... That's it. But he legally would have that right anyhow unless he really did sell his shares and wash his hands of the team.

Sssmush
05-01-2016, 05:50 AM
This is the most asinine logic ever. Let me paint an analogy.

A woman tells her husband she refuses to allow anyone else to teach their children and will instead homeschool them herself. She vows her children will pass the assessment test for at the end of the school year. She agrees if she couldn't teach them well enough to pass then she failed as a teacher and will let her husband make the decisions from there forward how they should be schooled. Addressing this analogy... you are saying the husband should just keep them at homeschool for 'continuity reasons'? He should not instead do what's best so that the children can advance?

I don't understand your logic at all. If Jim set his own standard of success and set his own timeline, then he should stand by his word. If there is any 'pledge of faith' to be made, it would be allowing him to maintain input on his successor, even though he said he'd walk away completely... That's it. But he legally would have that right anyhow unless he really did sell his shares and wash his hands of the team.

Well yes obviously he had faith in himself to make that "pledge" (In actuality it was a statement in an interview). So he felt comfortable giving the fans that guarantee. He has no intention of failing and he and Mitch see a clear path toward contending. So for him to say "look, if this goes 4 more years and it is like this then I will get somebody else to run things" isn't unreasonable. But again, he IS the owner of the team. And I mean how many people out of all the people talking smack have multiple championship rings as GMs or presidents of basketball operations? Just sayin'. Let's try to have SOME perspective here.

Even Phil Jackson would require being hired by Jim, essentially, and regardless Jim would still have veto power on major decisions. Period. I don't see how you get around that. And why would they? Phil pissed everybody off. He ran out Jerry West. He quit two times. He apparently pissed off Jerry Buss. He alienated Mitch and the front office. He wrote a book trashing Kobe. He spewed venom at the Lakers for the last five years indirectly through the media. So what do you want?

Of course if Popovich or Jerry West wants to join the front office I'm sure the Lakers would be cool with that. But why get rid of Mitch? He's an excellent hall of fame GM with 5 rings and is totally professional. And if Jim Buss hires them I don't see them turning around and demanding that Jim Buss fire himself and bar himself from the Laker compound.

Actually the more I think of it, it is only Phil Jackson who would demand that EVERYBODY else be fired. Fire Mitch, Jim fire himself, fire the entire front office, fire everybody. And then King Phil Jackson would preside. He is the only one who wants that but it is bull**** and is not going to happen. And it makes Jeannie look like a ditz that she openly wishes for that and thinks it's possible. And sportswriters write rumours about it. And Phil just openly flirts with the Lakers while under contract with the Knicks. Weird.

But yeah. I'm not saying that everybody should just blindly continue whatever they're doing regardless how bad it is. No.

What I'm saying is that IN THIS INSTANCE, Jeannie's best move is to side with her brother Jim Buss, and his partner Mitch Kupchak, and build up a base of organizational strength and continuity. Give him the vote of confidence. At least publicly. It's total amateur hour actually to undermine him or pretend that Jim's on the hotseat and Jeannie has the authority. That is just ridiculous and for her to even go along with that media narrative when it is laid out for her just comes across as flighty and dumb. Instead, try to build confidence in the fans, in the free agents. Why not? What do you gain from hinting or giving the sense like oooooooh you might "fire" Jim if you're not happy? You can't do that anyway it's ridiculous. I mean even if you could "fire" Jim then you would just do it. But undermining Jim, or confidence in Jim and Mitch, as a way to play politics with the fans in what is NOT a democracy and just kind of lamely hoping you will somehow bring Phil Jackson back just by sheer brute force of media crap-storm and fan discontent... I mean that is just really really bad management. And I'd point out that none of this is coming from Jim Buss or Mitch Kupchak, two guys just trying to do their job well and win some more championship rings.

JasonJohnHorn
05-01-2016, 08:46 AM
Again, they were tanking. And just as so many of the analytics crowd were siding somewhat with Sam Hinkie, and agreeing with some of the points he made in his WSJ farewell letter... I mean we have to agree that Jim and Mitch are in fact (or have in fact) carried out the "Hinkie strategy" better than Hinkie did. They did it.

*scratches head*

The Sixers have a better shot at landing the number one spot this year, have more draft picks this year and in upcoming years, and have more assets on their team currently.

How did Mitch and Jim do better?

Also... if you are trying to prove that Mitch and Jim are doing a great job, and your argument is 'They are better than Hinkie', well.... you might keep in mind that Hinkie has not only put together the worst time in the NBA today, but has put together the worst two-year stretch in the history of the league. If that is your mean, than pretty much everybody is better than Hinkie.


Right now, at this very moment, the very best free agents in the league, even up to Lebron James and Kevin Durant, are looking HARD at Los Angeles as a very real landing spot with $60M in cap space this year alone and a fresh clean slate on the biggest and most glamorous media stage in the NBA and even the world. BOOM.


You have a source to back this up? Nope. Look... just because you imagine something, doesn't make it true. You think LBJ is going to sign to a team in the West when he has a streak of 5 (potentially 6) straight finals appearances on the line? You think that KD is going to sign with a lottery team when he can sign with the Warriors or the Spurs? Or have an easier path to the final by signing with him home-town team in Washington? Or just stay with the Thunder who are already contenders.

Look... you imagination doesn't count as fact. Back your $#!T up with a source, or don't expect to be taken seriously. You are a homer pulling $#!T out of your @$$ right now.


I agree with Max Kellerman that the best criticisms of Mitch and Jim are that they didn't get trade value back for Pau Gasol and Dwight Howard. And of course you could say the Nash trade, the Brown firing (huge mistake I thought), and the D'Antoni hiring (I was pro-D'Antoni but in retrospect he was not going to get it done with Dwight and Kobe).

However, if you think about it, Kobe blocked or initiated all those moves. And Kobe's Valdemort like presence hung over the team and really limited what they could do for four solid years -- three of which Kobe was completely useless, and the first of which he was completely uncoachable and wore himself into the ground in some kind of weird ego trance where it was not enough just for the Lakers to win but where Kobe had to score every single shot himself. Culminating in him making two free throws with a severed Achilles and walking off heroically in the last game of the season. *wheeeeeeeeeeeee* (light clapping)

So everything Jim and Mitch have done wrong is Kobe's fault? Right. Good excuse. How about this. They could just not listen to Kobe. He doesn't own the team: Jim does. Even if those were calls Kobe made (which again: SOURCE?!?!?!?!), Jim and Mitch can override Kobe: HE WORKS FOR THEM!! If they chose to listen to him, that's on them. Michael Jordan told the Bulls to draft Joe Wolf and was furious when they didn't. Instead they got guys like Pippen and Grant. A good GM doesn't let his players dictate who they draft and who they sign.

I get it. You are a homer. You have a great imagination. You think your fantasy projections are fact. You have a boner for Jim and want to blame all his mistakes on Kobe and Jeanie. Why? I don't know. All I know is that is you aren't going to use reason and facts, and support your fantastical claims sources, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.

I'll make a sig bet with you. If the Lakers sign LBJ or KD this offseason, I'll change my sig to "Jim Buss is the best owner." Otherwise you change yours to 'Jeanie Buss should be running the Lakers'. How's that? Oh, let me guess... you aren't down for that.

beasted86
05-01-2016, 09:47 AM
Well yes obviously he had faith in himself to make that "pledge" (In actuality it was a statement in an interview). So he felt comfortable giving the fans that guarantee. He has no intention of failing and he and Mitch see a clear path toward contending. So for him to say "look, if this goes 4 more years and it is like this then I will get somebody else to run things" isn't unreasonable. But again, he IS the owner of the team. And I mean how many people out of all the people talking smack have multiple championship rings as GMs or presidents of basketball operations? Just sayin'. Let's try to have SOME perspective here.

Even Phil Jackson would require being hired by Jim, essentially, and regardless Jim would still have veto power on major decisions. Period. I don't see how you get around that. And why would they? Phil pissed everybody off. He ran out Jerry West. He quit two times. He apparently pissed off Jerry Buss. He alienated Mitch and the front office. He wrote a book trashing Kobe. He spewed venom at the Lakers for the last five years indirectly through the media. So what do you want?

Of course if Popovich or Jerry West wants to join the front office I'm sure the Lakers would be cool with that. But why get rid of Mitch? He's an excellent hall of fame GM with 5 rings and is totally professional. And if Jim Buss hires them I don't see them turning around and demanding that Jim Buss fire himself and bar himself from the Laker compound.

Actually the more I think of it, it is only Phil Jackson who would demand that EVERYBODY else be fired. Fire Mitch, Jim fire himself, fire the entire front office, fire everybody. And then King Phil Jackson would preside. He is the only one who wants that but it is bull**** and is not going to happen. And it makes Jeannie look like a ditz that she openly wishes for that and thinks it's possible. And sportswriters write rumours about it. And Phil just openly flirts with the Lakers while under contract with the Knicks. Weird.

But yeah. I'm not saying that everybody should just blindly continue whatever they're doing regardless how bad it is. No.

What I'm saying is that IN THIS INSTANCE, Jeannie's best move is to side with her brother Jim Buss, and his partner Mitch Kupchak, and build up a base of organizational strength and continuity. Give him the vote of confidence. At least publicly. It's total amateur hour actually to undermine him or pretend that Jim's on the hotseat and Jeannie has the authority. That is just ridiculous and for her to even go along with that media narrative when it is laid out for her just comes across as flighty and dumb. Instead, try to build confidence in the fans, in the free agents. Why not? What do you gain from hinting or giving the sense like oooooooh you might "fire" Jim if you're not happy? You can't do that anyway it's ridiculous. I mean even if you could "fire" Jim then you would just do it. But undermining Jim, or confidence in Jim and Mitch, as a way to play politics with the fans in what is NOT a democracy and just kind of lamely hoping you will somehow bring Phil Jackson back just by sheer brute force of media crap-storm and fan discontent... I mean that is just really really bad management. And I'd point out that none of this is coming from Jim Buss or Mitch Kupchak, two guys just trying to do their job well and win some more championship rings.

I don't get why you keep talking about Mitch as a long term lock for GM "just cause" or "for continuity" or whatever you keep spelling it as.

Pat Riley was a coach with a handful of rings and even he wasn't above a decision (unknown whether it was strictly personal or collective with Arison) that he would no longer be the coach.

It's very possible Mitch may not be the best fit as GM anymore in today's NBA just as Riley isn't a good fit as a coach in the modern NBA.

Like I said from the start, following Jim's own timetable, in 2 more years, the Buss family trust should be open to a total shake up of the front office depending on what progress the Lakers are at in getting back to a contender, and Jim definitely shouldn't fight it.

This isn't saying that Mitch is automatically excluded, nor that because Jim isn't in charge anymore, that 100% of decision power goes to Jeannie. All its saying is that Jim and Mitch may not be the right guys for the job.

More simple than anything the next 2 years will write its own narrative on how well or poorly Jim and Mitch have handled this rebuild.

Sssmush
05-01-2016, 09:50 PM
*scratches head*

The Sixers have a better shot at landing the number one spot this year, have more draft picks this year and in upcoming years, and have more assets on their team currently.

How did Mitch and Jim do better?

Also... if you are trying to prove that Mitch and Jim are doing a great job, and your argument is 'They are better than Hinkie', well.... you might keep in mind that Hinkie has not only put together the worst time in the NBA today, but has put together the worst two-year stretch in the history of the league. If that is your mean, than pretty much everybody is better than Hinkie.



You have a source to back this up? Nope. Look... just because you imagine something, doesn't make it true. You think LBJ is going to sign to a team in the West when he has a streak of 5 (potentially 6) straight finals appearances on the line? You think that KD is going to sign with a lottery team when he can sign with the Warriors or the Spurs? Or have an easier path to the final by signing with him home-town team in Washington? Or just stay with the Thunder who are already contenders.

Look... you imagination doesn't count as fact. Back your $#!T up with a source, or don't expect to be taken seriously. You are a homer pulling $#!T out of your @$$ right now.



So everything Jim and Mitch have done wrong is Kobe's fault? Right. Good excuse. How about this. They could just not listen to Kobe. He doesn't own the team: Jim does. Even if those were calls Kobe made (which again: SOURCE?!?!?!?!), Jim and Mitch can override Kobe: HE WORKS FOR THEM!! If they chose to listen to him, that's on them. Michael Jordan told the Bulls to draft Joe Wolf and was furious when they didn't. Instead they got guys like Pippen and Grant. A good GM doesn't let his players dictate who they draft and who they sign.

I get it. You are a homer. You have a great imagination. You think your fantasy projections are fact. You have a boner for Jim and want to blame all his mistakes on Kobe and Jeanie. Why? I don't know. All I know is that is you aren't going to use reason and facts, and support your fantastical claims sources, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.

I'll make a sig bet with you. If the Lakers sign LBJ or KD this offseason, I'll change my sig to "Jim Buss is the best owner." Otherwise you change yours to 'Jeanie Buss should be running the Lakers'. How's that? Oh, let me guess... you aren't down for that.

Yeah I don't do "sig bets." But yeah, you're right about that, I mean Durant is probably < 20% to sign in LA, and Lebron is like < 10% even if Durant already signed and they got the first pick. But really I don't even want Lebron here... he comes with too much baggage. Lebron would just be weird in LA. Like even in interviews it seems like he's hearing applause and cheering all the time when he talks when there is none. Like the way Kobe seemed to hear riotous laughter when he made that farewell joke about not passing the ball while in reality you could've heard a pin drop inside Staples Center.

The Lakers really need to play team ball. And with D'Angelo looking like a potential superstar... and who knows if they get a good draft pick... they have a lot of pieces that fit well together. Hinkie, (who is out and that is why he did it worse), put together a much worse team in Philly. A bunch of non-shooting bigs. And they don't have big contracts, so you can only trade them for more picks. And how much trade value does Embiid or Nerlens really have? It's just weird.

But yeah even the Lebron thing... I mean I don't think Lebron's agents are that imaginative... but just imagine that if Durant and Lebron came to LA next year. It would be like a Coachella rock concert every game at Staples center and an unprecedented media circus and social media phenomenon every night. NBA 2.0. BOOM.

Nike would be banking like billions. NBA all lit up in gold and purple. 7-7-7. Off the mutha****ing chain yo.

Of course the safe bet is just to go back to Cleveland and slog it out, lose in the Finals again, flex your muscles and protect your claim to be the "best" in the league or history or whatever and blame it all on everybody else. Big Lebron in a small town. *YAWN*

But yeah... How long will it be before some superstars wake up and come calling to LA? I mean right now I'm not even sure there is an LA worthy superstar out there. But players are looking at LA with desire now no question.

Sssmush
05-01-2016, 09:56 PM
I don't get why you keep talking about Mitch as a long term lock for GM "just cause" or "for continuity" or whatever you keep spelling it as.

Pat Riley was a coach with a handful of rings and even he wasn't above a decision (unknown whether it was strictly personal or collective with Arison) that he would no longer be the coach.

It's very possible Mitch may not be the best fit as GM anymore in today's NBA just as Riley isn't a good fit as a coach in the modern NBA.

Like I said from the start, following Jim's own timetable, in 2 more years, the Buss family trust should be open to a total shake up of the front office depending on what progress the Lakers are at in getting back to a contender, and Jim definitely shouldn't fight it.

This isn't saying that Mitch is automatically excluded, nor that because Jim isn't in charge anymore, that 100% of decision power goes to Jeannie. All its saying is that Jim and Mitch may not be the right guys for the job.

More simple than anything the next 2 years will write its own narrative on how well or poorly Jim and Mitch have handled this rebuild.

Yes what you say is fair.

Although the continuity thing... I do think continuity has value. Not just for its own sake, but long term a stable franchise with a tradition gains an advantage. So if every year the spectre of Phil is raised that maybe the whole front office will be fired and a new Phil era instated... that just makes the Lakers management seem unstable and flighty. Especially when that could never happen but yet Jeannie can barely get through an interview without saying well you know if I had my way Phil would be running everything.

Like maybe I am saying why can't Jeannie just step up to the plate and take the responsibility. And accept the power sharing with Jim. It just looks stronger to OWN the situation and say "Jim and Mitch are my guys. Period." Rather than always giving the impression you want someone different (your boyfriend(literally) Phil Jackson). That just looks weak. Like she wants X, but she is stuck with Y. And she keeps pointing it out. So it's like she's pointing out her own lack of power. Which makes the team look weak. And doesn't enhance the image of the highest ranking woman executive in pro sports.

But yeah you make great points and I think if things are going full speed South in two years bringing in more front office help only makes sense.