Lackers vs Spurs series

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Fri May 16, 2003 1:31 pm

It's a done deal. Spurs in six.

by **Brave Sir Rubin** on Fri May 16, 2003 1:37 pm

and Lackers they are.....

ytes...me still happy :lol:

by **Bill Russell** on Fri May 16, 2003 2:13 pm

Priceless moments (Y)

(Y)(Y)(Y)(Y)(Y)(Y)

by **Clinton** on Fri May 16, 2003 5:17 pm

Enjoy it while you can. :lol:

by **air gordon** on Fri May 16, 2003 5:52 pm

i sure will enjoy while i can. in fact i have a lot of time to enjoy this.

on the other hand, the lakers and their fans get to sulk in their loss for quite a while. when's opening day for next season?

i hear people say this loss will serve as a wake up call and it was a good thing for the lakers. is it a good thing to realize you have a full offseason to make changes you should have made last season??

New Lakers slogan: Maybe Next Year

by **Boyk** on Fri May 16, 2003 9:10 pm

Brave Sir Rubin wrote:and Lackers they are.....

ytes...me still happy

yes............Lackers they are........for winning three straight championships :roll:

by **Rens** on Fri May 16, 2003 11:11 pm

That's like saying the Bulls didn't suck in the years after their repeat threepeat because they'd won 6 championships the years before.

by **Boyk** on Fri May 16, 2003 11:56 pm

Dan Gadzuric wrote:That's like saying the Bulls didn't suck in the years after their repeat threepeat because they'd won 6 championships the years before.

ummmmmmmmmmmmm...........no :lol:

that was quite foolish, considering they dropped to a lottery team, i cant see lakers doing that, unless kobes loses a leg and cant play anymore, and shaq retires, and phil has a heart attack, that likely to happen....................doubt it :roll:

by **Rens** on Sat May 17, 2003 12:02 am

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......yes :lol:

Your only argument why the Lakers wouldn't be Lackers was their previous championships.

by **Boyk** on Sat May 17, 2003 12:45 am

yes true i did

but then i backed it up in my post just above, saying, Chicago fell straight to a lottery team, lakers wont, unless them 3 things happen that i mentioned

by **Wall St. Peon** on Sat May 17, 2003 8:16 am

Actually, two of those things could happen...Phil might retire, and Shaq said he'd retire if Phil did....

by **Clinton** on Sat May 17, 2003 10:44 am

I've read a couple of articles that say he Phil will be back. If he does return there shouldn't be anything to worry about. The Lakers will be lead by Shaq and Kobe next season. no way they are going to the lottery like the Bulls, Shaq isn't retiring, Kobe isn't leaving town, totally different situation to the Bulls one. The Bulls weren't back at the top the next season, the Lakers will be.

by **Steve04** on Sat May 17, 2003 11:09 am

Kobe is in his mid twenties as opposed to Jordan in his late 30's?

There are not that many similarity's between the teams.

by **air gordon** on Sat May 17, 2003 6:49 pm

Clinton wrote:I've read a couple of articles that say he Phil will be back. If he does return there shouldn't be anything to worry about. The Lakers will be lead by Shaq and Kobe next season. no way they are going to the lottery like the Bulls, Shaq isn't retiring, Kobe isn't leaving town, totally different situation to the Bulls one. The Bulls weren't back at the top the next season, the Lakers will be.

yes, the bulls situation is not the same as the current laker dilmema. the bulls weren't given a chance (in actuality- they did. but they didn't have have the same cast come back the following year i.e.- after the first 3 championships, jordan retired and in 2nd 3, the whole team was broken up.) to go for a '4-peat' unlike LA was.

i'm going by the cold, hard facts here. the lakers were lead by the aforementioned duo, but they failed. it's obvious that those two can't do it alone. and it's obvious that the current cast of players around them won't get them to finals either.

So how exactly will these lakers be back at the top next season? please explain. and please come up with something better then "they will sign so and so' and another 'so and so', which automatically will bring them back to the top

by **Boyk** on Sun May 18, 2003 6:50 am

ignoring what limp just said :roll:

coz no team in a situation like the lakers are can get better without signing and trading :roll:

I say trade Derek Fisher,Robert Horry and maybe throw in a pick for P.J Brown in a sign and trade deal

Then try and sign Gary Payton to the mid-level which he has said he will probably accept.

by **Clinton** on Sun May 18, 2003 3:42 pm

So how exactly will these lakers be back at the top next season? please explain. and please come up with something better then "they will sign so and so' and another 'so and so', which automatically will bring them back to the top

I can't come up with something better than they are going to do it by signing so and so, because that is the only way it's gonna be done. Their old role players are all of a sudden going to go back to their prime. Changes have to be made. What's wrong with talking hypothetically about who they could sign. There have been threads all season asking where Kidd, Duncan etc could end up. Just cause it's the Lakers don't make another argument out of it, sheesh. :roll:

by **Matthew** on Sun May 18, 2003 7:18 pm

Ok, hypothetically speaking, how good will the lakers go if they dont sign anyone significant this off season?

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Sun May 18, 2003 8:30 pm

I'd say about the same. The Lakers need:

A better starting power forward. Horry would be fine, though he's always been more of a small forward in a power forward's body. Samaki Walker is decent, but there's better players who could fill the role.

A competent and experienced backup point guard. The only true point guard other than Derek Fisher they had throughout the year was rookie Jannero Pargo. I haven't seen him play, but I get the impression he's not a consistent spark plug or capable reserve.

Obviously, they'll need to replace players who don't return next season, leaving the Lakers lacking at a position.

On top of all that, they need to readjust their attitude. They can't rely on this infamous "switch" - they need to play, every game. They have to be interested throughout the year, else they'll find themselves battling for good playoff position or exiting the playoffs in the first or second round.

They're not going to win just because they are the Lakers and won three straight titles. I think that, on top of injuries (remember, this year's roster was basically the same give or take a couple of bench players) and improved opponents was the reason the Lakers failed to advance past the second round.

by **Matthew** on Sun May 18, 2003 8:43 pm

We talked about the attitude of the laker players on msn a second ago.

They're overconfidence fucked them badly this year. Kobe and Devan George were the only players who improved last off season. Shaq has got to get back into basketball shape from the get go and hope his determination and fire is lit just like in previous years.

And also some roster improvements like you said would be nice :cool:

by **air gordon** on Mon May 19, 2003 3:59 am

What's wrong with talking hypothetically about who they could sign. There have been threads all season asking where Kidd, Duncan etc could end up. Just cause it's the Lakers don't make another argument out of it, sheesh.

typical.. getting defensive :roll:

you're the one already GUARANTEEING LA will be on top next season:

The Bulls weren't back at the top the next season, the Lakers will be.

i'm just asking for you to give me a REALISTIC explanation how.

i never said it was wrong to talk hypothetically about who they can sign. but if you're going to use that as your explanation as to why the 'lakers will at the top next season'... i can say that the nuggets, or any other team other then the lakers for that matter, will be on top next season because they can hypothetically sign all of the all stars from eastern conference.

by **Clinton** on Mon May 19, 2003 5:50 pm

i'm just asking for you to give me a REALISTIC explanation how.

They will be back at the top just for the plain fact they have Kobe and Shaq. I never said they will win the championship next year. I said they will be back at the top. If the Lakers do nothing this offseason they will still be one of the top teams in the West, but not good enough to make it through a 7 game series with the likes of the Spurs, Kings or Mavs. If the want another championship changes have to be made. When I said they the Lakers will be on top I wasn't even discussing free-agents was I?? I was discussing similariaties between the Lakers at the end of their three peat to the Bulls at the end of their second, which there a very few of...

by **air gordon** on Mon May 19, 2003 6:10 pm

Clinton wrote: I said they will be back at the top. If the Lakers do nothing this offseason they will still be one of the top teams in the West, but not good enough to make it through a 7 game series with the likes of the Spurs, Kings or Mavs.

so which one is it? they will be 'back at the top' or 'one of the top teams'?? it's either one or the other. can't be both. like pregnancy.

regardless which one you choose, i think it's a bold statement to make. if they were to go into next season with the same roster, i say they would be no better then a 'second tier' team at best.

by **Clinton** on Mon May 19, 2003 6:21 pm

so which one is it? they will be 'back at the top' or 'one of the top teams'?? it's either one or the other. can't be both.

That's the same thing isn't it??? Being at the top of the league and being a top team in the league, I think so. Stop picking apart my posts to find anything wrong with them. You're just trying to start an argument.

regardless which one you choose, i think it's a bold statement to make. if they were to go into next season with the same roster, i say they would be no better then a 'second tier' team at best.

I choose both, because they are the same thing :roll:

If the Lakers make no changes the will probably do as well as they did this year, 50 wins and a 2nd round playoff exit. They can do thaat jusy because they have Shaq and Kobe, but to get past the deeper Sacramento, Dallas or San Antonio they will need to make changes.

by **Rens** on Mon May 19, 2003 7:36 pm

Well, being "at the top" implies being the best most of the time (i.e. in this case interpreted as being champs again), being "among the top teams" is being one of the best. So there is a difference.

Obviously the Lakers are going to make changes, and depending on the willingness of some of the free agents, they will likely be among the better teams in the league again. I read an article today about Jowan Howard willing to take the MLE to play for the Lakers, he would be a good fit to help Shaq down low. Howard is still a good player.

I wonder who the Lakers will go after as their point guard. There are a few good young players who could be considered, assuming they won't get Payton or Pippen. This because I'm not sure Payton would even take the MLE, and I wonder if Pippen wants to play for the Lakers bad enough to take the veteran's minimum.
Some of the options are:
Smush Parker
Speedy Claxton
Shammond Williams
Erick Strickland (ok, not that young)

by **air gordon** on Tue May 20, 2003 7:45 am

Clinton wrote:That's the same thing isn't it??? Being at the top of the league and being a top team in the league, I think so. Stop picking apart my posts to find anything wrong with them. You're just trying to start an argument.

Dan Gadzuric wrote:Well, being "at the top" implies being the best most of the time (i.e. in this case interpreted as being champs again), being "among the top teams" is being one of the best. So there is a difference.

thank you, gidza...

that laker kool-aid you drinking make you testy also, clinton?? :roll:

Lackers vs Spurs series

Who is online