my Laker predictions

[elindholm]

I think we're in a much better position now to make educated guessed than we were a few days ago. Here are mine:

• The Lakers will win the title. Okay, this isn't quite such a bold prediction now as when they were down 0-2, but I'll stick to it anyway.
• Malone will retire. He has his ring and the all-time scoring record isn't worth the continued sacrifice.
• Payton will opt out or possibly retire. He has his ring and, if he keeps playing, will want to do it where he can get back to his game.
• Jackson will retire. He'll have his tenth championship and will leave on a high note, rather than risk tarnishing his legacy.
• Bryant will re-sign with the Lakers. His "condition" for re-signing will be that the new coach has to understand that the Lakers are Bryant's team, not O'Neal's. Jackson finally figured this out when they fell behind 0-2 to the Spurs, but he will never admit it.
• O'Neal will bitch for an extension all summer and not get it. His name will surface in trade rumors, but nothing will materialize. He will remain with the Lakers and show the same inconsistent motivation he showed this year, but a bit worse.
• Lacking a supporting cast, the Lakers will make an early playoff exit next year -- conference finals at the latest. No one will much care.

 

[George O'Brien]

I won't predict what will happen next year, but the rest sounds pretty reasonable.

I only watched a little bit of the game last night, but it certainly looked like the triangle is dead. Jackson is so invested in the triangle that it took risking being swept before he recognized the obvious - the triangle does not fit the personnel he has this year.

One of the reasons that I think Jerry Sloan is a better coach than Phil Jackson is that Jerry figures out how to make the best use of his personnel.

 

[Joe Mama]

I won't predict what will happen next year, but the rest sounds pretty reasonable.

I only watched a little bit of the game last night, but it certainly looked like the triangle is dead. Jackson is so invested in the triangle that it took risking being swept before he recognized the obvious - the triangle does not fit the personnel he has this year.

One of the reasons that I think Jerry Sloan is a better coach than Phil Jackson is that Jerry figures out how to make the best use of his personnel.

I'm sorry, but the difference between the first two games in the last four had more to do with the Lakers defense than offense. The Lakers had trouble scoring throughout the series, but in the last four games they really frustrated the Spurs with staunch defense.

I do think Jerry Sloan is a better coach than Phil Jackson, but Jerry Sloan did not really change his system much. What he did is show that his system is a winner even without the star players at Phil Jackson relies on.

BTW, I totally agree with Eric's predictions for the Lakers even though it's going to cost me $50.

Joe Mama

 

[George O'Brien]

I do think Jerry Sloan is a better coach than Phil Jackson, but Jerry Sloan did not really change his system much. What he did is show that his system is a winner even without the star players at Phil Jackson relies on.

Joe Mama

My originial thought was that part of the reason Sloan did so well was that his young players were entering an established offense. However, I read several posts which analyzed what they are going and make the case that their offense is radically different than last year except that it is very disciplined.

Sloan adjusted to not having Malone and Stockton but completely abandoning the pick and roll dominated offense those two ran. But if by system you mean "pass the ball", then yes they continued that.

 

[hcsilla]

I agree with everything what elindholm predicted.

THIS Shaq does not deserve the extension what he wants.

I believe that after getting a ring Payton will move to another play-off team where he gets a more important task.

 

[DaFlogger]

I agree with everything what elindholm predicted.

THIS Shaq does not deserve the extension what he wants.

I believe that after getting a ring Payton will move to another play-off team where he gets a more important task.

As in the Suns?

 

[Joe Mama]

As in the Suns?

I sure as hell hope not. I don't think that one ring would be enough to get Gary Payton to a team that was nowhere near the playoffs last year. I also don't think he will sacrifice the money again if he moves... at least not without another legitimate shot at a championship.

Regarding the Utah Jazz: I was trying to remember if they still ran any pick and roll offense. If they do any I know it isn't nearly as much as a used to be with John Stockton and Karl Malone. However over the last several years it seemed to like their offense was incorporating the "other" players more and more. I certainly don't think they had to completely revamp their offense. Anyhow I do think Jerry Sloan is the best coach in the NBA. It's one of the reasons I would have been very happy with Phil Johnson as a head coach.

Joe Mama

 

[F-Dog]

I think we're in a much better position now to make educated guessed than we were a few days ago. Here are mine:

• The Lakers will win the title. Okay, this isn't quite such a bold prediction now as when they were down 0-2, but I'll stick to it anyway.
• Malone will retire. He has his ring and the all-time scoring record isn't worth the continued sacrifice.
• Payton will opt out or possibly retire. He has his ring and, if he keeps playing, will want to do it where he can get back to his game.
• Jackson will retire. He'll have his tenth championship and will leave on a high note, rather than risk tarnishing his legacy.
• Bryant will re-sign with the Lakers. His "condition" for re-signing will be that the new coach has to understand that the Lakers are Bryant's team, not O'Neal's. Jackson finally figured this out when they fell behind 0-2 to the Spurs, but he will never admit it.
• O'Neal will bitch for an extension all summer and not get it. His name will surface in trade rumors, but nothing will materialize. He will remain with the Lakers and show the same inconsistent motivation he showed this year, but a bit worse.
• Lacking a supporting cast, the Lakers will make an early playoff exit next year -- conference finals at the latest. No one will much care.

The Lakers are the favorites now, I agree. I thought before the playoffs that Minnesota had the second-best chance of beating the Lakers in a playoff series--they rebuilt themselves this summer with the Lakers in mind IMO--but if the Lakers can beat the Spurs, they have to be the favorites against anybody else.

The Lakers won the last series because of their collapsing defense, though, not Kobe. (Although Kobe did win game 4 pretty much single-handedly.) The Spurs couldn't start their fast break or make a perimeter shot when it counted in LA, so Fisher's miracle shot in SA was the difference.


I think Phil Jackson is gone regardless of what happens. If Kobe deigns to re-sign, picking the new coach will be one of his demands, and if Kobe is gone, Jackson won't see the point in sticking around. Jax already has one foot out the door--he's as good as anybody at recognizing the writing on the wall.

Payton and Malone will both be playing somewhere next year. If they win and Kobe stays, my guess is that Malone signs for another tour with the Lakers for the vet minimum. He's working for his legacy now--he probably thinks he has another two or three years left to catch Kareem's scoring record and rehabilitate his choke-master image, before his body slips another notch.


If all goes well for them, the Lakers will be the talk of this offseason, too, as they shop their MLE around and Shaq ******* and/or demands a trade. I doubt the NBA's drama queens will be taking an entire year off from shoving everybody else out of the limelight.

 

[F-Dog]

Regarding the Utah Jazz: I was trying to remember if they still ran any pick and roll offense. If they do any I know it isn't nearly as much as a used to be with John Stockton and Karl Malone. However over the last several years it seemed to like their offense was incorporating the "other" players more and more. I certainly don't think they had to completely revamp their offense. Anyhow I do think Jerry Sloan is the best coach in the NBA. It's one of the reasons I would have been very happy with Phil Johnson as a head coach.

I think Phil Johnson would probably be a lousy head coach for the Suns, for three reasons:

1. Just because an assistant knows a system backwards and forwards doesn't mean he can re-create the same magic if he's on his own. Remember what happened when Dean Smith retired from UNC.

2. Jerry Sloan has de facto GM power, and I'm pretty sure his assistant would need the same; in the few instances where the Jazz have gotten a player who doesn't fit their rigid profiles, they've failed miserably in trying to get something out of him. DeShawn Stevenson is the most glaring example of this, but I can think of a few others--Keon Clark is one from this year, and Donyell Marshall from the recent past, and Troy Hudson...there's more than one reason the Jazz haven't had many big-name acquisitions over the years.

Johnson would be taking over a roster that's pretty much set, and doesn't have many Jazz-type players. Stylistically, it would be like apples trying to coach oranges.

3. If the Jazz overachieve with mediocre talent, you could argue they've underachieved when they've been among the league's elite. Part of this IMO is that they play the same way all the time, which is effective in the regular season (when teams don't see you very often) but less so in a long playoff series where the other team can make adjustments.


On a personal note, I think the Jazz play a dirty and ugly brand of basketball, and I would hate to see the Suns start to play that way.


Fortunately, I'm arguing a moot point here (as you say).

 

[cly2tw]

Eric,

if Shaq stays on but unmotivated with no trade in sight, why should Kobe want to stay for a couple years of no chance at a title? Thus, I think one condition for Kobe staying is Shaq being traded. How about Shaq +Rush for Marion, White, Eisley, JJ, lottery pick, Cleveland's pick?

 

[Joe Mama]

I think Phil Johnson would probably be a lousy head coach for the Suns, for three reasons:

1. Just because an assistant knows a system backwards and forwards doesn't mean he can re-create the same magic if he's on his own. Remember what happened when Dean Smith retired from UNC.

How about Jeff Van Gundy, his brother, Terry Porter, Rick Carlisle, etc., etc.? Nobody is a sure thing, but I do like the idea of having Jerry Sloan's top man. Again, not trying to say that I'm displeased with D'Antoni's extension. Quite honestly I'm not sure how I feel about that. I definitely want to see some things change from last season, starting with that defense.

2. Jerry Sloan has de facto GM power, and I'm pretty sure his assistant would need the same; in the few instances where the Jazz have gotten a player who doesn't fit their rigid profiles, they've failed miserably in trying to get something out of him. DeShawn Stevenson is the most glaring example of this, but I can think of a few others--Keon Clark is one from this year, and Donyell Marshall from the recent past, and Troy Hudson...there's more than one reason the Jazz haven't had many big-name acquisitions over the years.

Deshawn Stevenson is just not a very good basketball player. Clark only played in 2 games this season. Donyell Marshall had two of his best years in Utah. He was a great third option for the Utah Jazz and a big part of their success at that point. Troy Hudson played 8 games for the Utah Jazz as a rookie as an undrafted free agent.

Johnson would be taking over a roster that's pretty much set, and doesn't have many Jazz-type players. Stylistically, it would be like apples trying to coach oranges.

I would think that Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion, Zarko Cabarkapa, Lampe, Casey Jacobsen, Barbosa, and Jake Voskuhl could all adapt very well and very quickly to a looser Utah Jazz offense. I would worry a little bit about Amare Stoudemire, but I think he could be a good enough passer to fit in well. Besides, Nolan said the coach would have to come in and run a carbon copy of the Utah Jazz offense. When I enjoy is the way they work as a team and are always moving around to create easy offensive opportunities. Perhaps with a summer and training and D'Antoni will be able to implement a good offensive system for the Phoenix Suns.

3. If the Jazz overachieve with mediocre talent, you could argue they've underachieved when they've been among the league's elite. Part of this IMO is that they play the same way all the time, which is effective in the regular season (when teams don't see you very often) but less so in a long playoff series where the other team can make adjustments.

I'm sorry. I really fail to see how they ever underachieved. Two straight NBA finals and good finals series against some great Chicago Bulls teams doesn't seem like an underachievement to me. If anything I would say those Utah Jazz teams overachieved with their talent. To me the Utah Jazz were like the Denver Broncos with their running backs. They took players like Bryon Russell, Shannon Anderson, Howard Eiseley, etc. and made them look much, much better than they actually are. I would love to see what they could do with a very talented roster.


Joe Mama

 

[elindholm]

F-Dog:

I thought before the playoffs that Minnesota had the second-best chance of beating the Lakers in a playoff series--they rebuilt themselves this summer with the Lakers in mind IMO

True, but that was when they expected something out of Olowokandi. Their highly touted free-agent center is now losing minutes to Mark Madsen. Oh, the humanity!

The Lakers won the last series because of their collapsing defense, though, not Kobe.

It's true that the collapsing defense made the difference between the first two games and the last four. But all it really did was make sure that the Lakers' one decisive advantage stood out: they had a player who could get off a good shot against any defense, and the Spurs didn't.

I doubt the NBA's drama queens will be taking an entire year off from shoving everybody else out of the limelight.

Heh, good point!

cly2tw:

if Shaq stays on but unmotivated with no trade in sight, why should Kobe want to stay for a couple years of no chance at a title?

That's certainly a valid question. My answer would be:

1. Even an unmotivated O'Neal is one of the top five players in the league.

2. It's only for two years. Bryant's new contract with the Lakers will be for seven. There's no way to know what the Lakers will do after O'Neal's current contract is up, but their prospects for remaining competitive (assuming Bryant stays) are as good as almost anyone's.

3. I don't think Bryant's other options are any more attractive. If he joins a terrible team (and, unfortunately, the present Suns qualify), it's not like he'll be winning titles with them right away either. I suppose he could go to one of this year's "almost" teams, with Detroit, I guess, being the most logical option. It's hard to see how that could work financially, but there's probably a way.

How about Shaq +Rush for Marion, White, Eisley, JJ, lottery pick, Cleveland's pick?

I don't want O'Neal on the Suns. This will be his last title.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Eric,

if Shaq stays on but unmotivated with no trade in sight, why should Kobe want to stay for a couple years of no chance at a title? Thus, I think one condition for Kobe staying is Shaq being traded. How about Shaq +Rush for Marion, White, Eisley, JJ, lottery pick, Cleveland's pick?

I dont think they would do it unless we threw in Casey.

 

[elindholm]

I dont think they would do it unless we threw in Casey.

 

[F-Dog]

I thought before the playoffs that Minnesota had the second-best chance of beating the Lakers in a playoff series--they rebuilt themselves this summer with the Lakers in mind IMO

True, but that was when they expected something out of Olowokandi. Their highly touted free-agent center is now losing minutes to Mark Madsen. Oh, the humanity!

Shaq killed Olowokandi when he was with the Clips, though. The less time Kandi sees against the Lakers, the better.

Still, Minnesota does have Ervin Johnson and Oliver Miller(!), and I think Madsen was a difference-maker for the Lakers against the Wolves last year. If KG decides to assert himself, the Lakers are going to have another tough series on their hands.

The Lakers won the last series because of their collapsing defense, though, not Kobe.

It's true that the collapsing defense made the difference between the first two games and the last four. But all it really did was make sure that the Lakers' one decisive advantage stood out: they had a player who could get off a good shot against any defense, and the Spurs didn't.

Derek Fisher?

Seriously, the key game was game 5, and the Spurs had no problem getting open shots in that game (or their other losses, for that matter). They just couldn't hit from the perimeter when they needed to.

 

[F-Dog]

Deshawn Stevenson is just not a very good basketball player. Clark only played in 2 games this season. Donyell Marshall had two of his best years in Utah. He was a great third option for the Utah Jazz and a big part of their success at that point. Troy Hudson played 8 games for the Utah Jazz as a rookie as an undrafted free agent.

The Jazz would have strongly disagreed with your assessment of Stevenson when they drafted him, and so would most of the independent draftniks. The problem was that he didn't improve much after he was drafted; I'm sure most of it is his own fault, but it's hard for me to completely absolve the coaching staff, especially since they agreed to take him on in the first place.

Have the Jazz drafted a HS player (or any American) in the first round since then?


Marshall is playing better right now than he was then, I think. The key point to me is that his minutes fluctuated wildly while he was there, and the Jazz couldn't keep him, IIRC because he wasn't willing to put up with the kind of abuse that you still see heaped on Ostertag. Put Shawn Marion through that same wringer, and my guess is you see the same result.

Clark was a disaster from the moment he showed up, and the Jazz had an entire year to see what Hudson had and discarded him anyway.

I'm sorry. I really fail to see how they ever underachieved. Two straight NBA finals and good finals series against some great Chicago Bulls teams doesn't seem like an underachievement to me. If anything I would say those Utah Jazz teams overachieved with their talent.

The Bulls teams they lost to were running on fumes--the last one was the team that was broken up immediately afterward because they had no chance to win another title.

I guess it depends on whether you think Stockton and Malone were great players or just very good.

To me the Utah Jazz were like the Denver Broncos with their running backs. They took players like Bryon Russell, Shannon Anderson, Howard Eiseley, etc. and made them look much, much better than they actually are. I would love to see what they could do with a very talented roster.

I think that's a good analogy.

Of course, I would argue that the Broncos have great success with RBs because they have a system and know how to scout for players to fit that system. Similarly, nobody was forcing the Jazz to trot out Eisley and Shandon Anderson; they could have acquired and used players with more talent, but chose to use lesser players who would fit their roles perfectly.

What would they do with a very talented roster? My guess is the first step would be to strip away most of the talent, after which we could sit around praising the coaching and wondering what happened to our idiot talent scouts.