Just a thought... why does everyone think it takes so much time to compete for a title? - Page 2 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Murphy3 · 06-18-2002, 02:17 PM

ok..finally, you're gaining some consistency to your argument..

and to answer your question:
"Ok thas all u had to say but ask ur self whould u trade NVE for an Ill Mourning or an injured Grant or Camby"

yes, to all of them.

NVE is as much of a bad shooting 2-guard as he is a PG.

Fidel · 06-18-2002, 04:47 PM

<< What pieces do the Kings have that the MAVS dont? >>

Divac. A very good center who can defend down low, has a nice touch, has a post up game and is a great high post passer. He´s easiely the second best true center in the league right now.

Christie. A true defensive stopper, who´s clearly ahaed of Buckner or Griffin.

Hoopsmeister · 06-18-2002, 05:18 PM

<< Divac. A very good center who can defend down low, has a nice touch, has a post up game and is a great high post passer. He´s easiely the second best true center in the league right now. >>

I thought this was a clear exageration. Then I spent a while trying to think of centers clearly better than him. I don't think Divac is clearly better than Mourning--but at this point he's not clearly worse either.

Fidel · 06-18-2002, 05:41 PM

It´s funny Hoops isn´t it?
While others declined, Divac kept it up.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-18-2002, 06:48 PM

<<

<< What pieces do the Kings have that the MAVS dont? >>

Divac. A very good center who can defend down low, has a nice touch, has a post up game and is a great high post passer. He´s easiely the second best true center in the league right now.

Christie. A true defensive stopper, who´s clearly ahaed of Buckner or Griffin. >>

I think ur whole post is exaggerated a bit. Christe I wouldn call ahead of Buck or Griff only thing he ahs on them is that he starts on a consistent basis and Griff and Buck dont. Christie is a good defender but he is really just a guy who can get u steals but wont shut down an opponent this is why eh made defensive all 2nd team rather than first. I even think Finley lit him up for 38 and Nash had his turn as well.

And saying Divac is the 2nd best center in the league isnt really saying to much. There is only one dominate center in the league which is Shaq I think Duncan is dominate but I guess ur listing him as a foward. All of the other good centers are either old or arent healthy and havent played half of the season. I think Ratliff Camby Mourning Mutombo are all better than Divac and they will play u head up and not flop. Now Duncan's true position is a center but I guess u can lable him a foward.

Murphy3 · 06-18-2002, 07:18 PM

well, i think the mavs need to upgrade in the middle more than they do at the three spot..hoops and filthy mavs may disagree...

but, i think one thing alot of us might agree on is that the mavs coaching staff needs more to help the mavs defensively with whatever roster the mavs throw out there...

I'd like to see less of the small lineups... i'd like to see more donnie ball, to be honest

dude1394 · 06-18-2002, 08:46 PM

Newsflash: Donnie-Ball is the sure path to a championship. Although Donnie-Ball has never been tried in the playoffs.

Murphy3 · 06-18-2002, 08:48 PM

Donnie style is a more traditional style than his father's style of coaching. He is definitely more interested in playing big men

I'd like to see Don Nelson move a little more towards that direction.

dude1394 · 06-18-2002, 08:50 PM

ALLRIGHT!! More Bradley

Fidel · 06-18-2002, 09:17 PM

<< I think Ratliff Camby Mourning Mutombo are all better than Divac >>

Ratliff and Camby aren´t "true" centers. They can play center in the east, cause all of the remaining true centers play in the west (Olajuwon can´t play any more and Mutombo hasn´t got any offense). Maybe the center postion is dying, but that´s not what my post was about.
Divac clearly had a better year than Mutombo (the stats look pretty similar, but you have to consider what the sixers did this year and what the Kings did. Also the Kings were the deepest team in the league, and Divac only averaged 30 mins. Divac is lightyears aheah of Mutombo when it comes to offense or passing, but he can also defend his man and rebound).
Mourning, well that´s debatable. But again, look where he plays and what they did. If he is healthy, that´s a different story, but he is not.
Duncan, he could make the switch to center. Right now he has more of a PF´s game, despite playing some center.
All in all that makes Divac the second best "true" center in the league. He was one of the keys to the Kings playoff run.

Christie is clearly a better defender than Buck or Griffin. Disagree if you like.

Hoopsmeister · 06-18-2002, 09:42 PM

<< Christe I wouldn call ahead of Buck or Griff only thing he ahs on them is that he starts on a consistent basis and Griff and Buck dont. Christie is a good defender but he is really just a guy who can get u steals but wont shut down an opponent this is why eh made defensive all 2nd team rather than first. I even think Finley lit him up for 38 and Nash had his turn as well. >>

Christie is clearly a better defender than Buck or Griff. That's why he's an NBA starter and gets more minutes than the Mavericks guys. Who did he not shut down? Kobe? Finley? In the NBA, not even great defenders 'shut down' all-stars. All you can expect from them is to make his target work for his points and if you look at Kobe's shooting percentage against the Kings, Christie made him work.

<<And saying Divac is the 2nd best center in the league isnt really saying to much. There is only one dominate center in the league which is Shaq I think Duncan is dominate but I guess ur listing him as a foward. All of the other good centers are either old or arent healthy and havent played half of the season. I think Ratliff Camby Mourning Mutombo are all better than Divac and they will play u head up and not flop.[/i] >>

Duncan could be a true center and would be the 2nd best center in the league. But he has played power forward his entire career and so until that changes, he doesn't count as a center--Dirk plays more center than Duncan does. Ratliff and Camby aren't better than Divac even when they are healthy, not to mention that they aren't true centers. Mutombo is a somewhat better defender than Divac. But Divac's offensive game both in passing and scoring himself is light years better than Mutombo. And if you watched the Finals last year and the WCF finals this year, Divac did as good a job defending Shaq as Mutombo did. Morning I think is a wash right now in his debilitated state.

Fidel didn't say that Divac was a great all-time center. He even noted that its kind of funny that Divac is now one of the best centers in part because he has maintained or even gotten better (he plays very, very smart) while the actually great centers (Olajuwan, Ewing, Morning) have deteriorated and no one has taken their place.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-18-2002, 10:06 PM

No Christe is a starter because he is there best all around 2 guard. Now ok yea Christie probaly is a better defender but he did not shut down Kobe nor Finley in the playoffs if I recall correctly. Finley lit him up for 38 one game and averaged 24 points in the Kings series. Kobe i dont know his correct stats but by watching he averaged aroudn 27-8 a game. Yea Chrisite is a good defender but he will get u ur steals rather than shut down an opponent.

Fidel, if all the guys I mentioned werent true centers than yea Divac is the 2nd best center. Like I said before that doesent say much but he is a better center than Todd Macculough, Shawn Bradely, Ervin Johnson, and Tony Battie. That isnt much of an accomplishment but yea I guess he is the 2nd best center if u dotn lable Duncan, Camby, Ratliff, etc. "true" centers. I'm not taking anything away from Divac I think he did a terrific job on Shaq probaly the best any player has to offer but Divac isnt a Mavs killer and he is probaly my last guy I would worry about on the Kings team.

Murphy3 · 06-18-2002, 10:09 PM

Christie did a very good job on Kobe. Kobe had a hard time scoring at with any type of efficiency against Christie and the Kings.. he shot very poorly during the series

Drbio · 06-18-2002, 10:38 PM

Whoa..take one semi-day off and a thread like this blows up...looks settled down now so.....

To answer the original question....it doesn't have to take so long to win. This "take their lumps" stuff just doesn't pan out. This team has the talent to compete adn win....with a couple minor tweaks, I can see the Mavs winning consistently for a few years.

Hoopsmeister · 06-18-2002, 10:51 PM

<< No Christe is a starter because he is there best all around 2 guard. Now ok yea Christie probaly is a better defender but he did not shut down Kobe nor Finley in the playoffs if I recall correctly. Finley lit him up for 38 one game and averaged 24 points in the Kings series. Kobe i dont know his correct stats but by watching he averaged aroudn 27-8 a game. Yea Chrisite is a good defender but he will get u ur steals rather than shut down an opponent. >>

Christie is their 'best all-around 2 guard' because the Kings traded to acquire him, gave him a nice contract to keep him and have never bothered to even look at another 2 guard. And I was being ironic, pointing out that no, he doesn't shut down all-stars. But neither does anybody else in NBA. He does make them work for what points they get and that's what a good defender does.

Drbio · 06-18-2002, 10:55 PM

Christie was awesome this year. I would have loved having him on the Mavs.

Stressboy91 · 06-19-2002, 11:33 AM

I apologize if this has already been mentioned in the thread, but I did not have time to read it all. It seems to me the inital theory was a little flawed. It used the Bull and Lakers as the test case but failed to mention that both of those teams not only had an all-star in his prime, but instead had a SUPERSTAR in his prime with an young up and coming SUPERSTAR(KOBE) and all-star in Pippen.

Chemistry is important, but it is that SUPERSTAR in his prime that is the difference and we are 4 years away from Dirk being there. The Mavs have made a lot of moves over the last 2 years for the here and now with little regard to the most important time in Mavs history. We should have been trying to get a young up and coming superstar to go along with Dirk when he is a SUPERSTAR. I think that is what they were doing with Harvey but gave up on it. That is the formula that needs to happen and that is why the Mavs really need to get a young stud in this years draft. That is why I don't mind trades with Nash and even Finley that get us that player.

I truly believe that Nash and Finley will start to decline right when Dirk is taking off and although their declining might be enough to get us the championship, a young stud will help us dominate for years to come.

I want to win now, but I recognize that right now, there are 3 teams better than us and I don't think that will change unless Dirk comes back this next year as the dominate player he is destined to become.

Just my take,

Stressboy

Murphy3 · 06-19-2002, 11:46 AM

<< It seems to me the inital theory was a little flawed. It used the Bull and Lakers as the test case but failed to mention that both of those teams not only had an all-star in his prime, but instead had a SUPERSTAR in his prime with an young up and coming SUPERSTAR(KOBE) and all-star in Pippen >>

The Bulls and Lakers were only used because the Bulls and Lakers had been used as examples as a team that had to take their lumps before they could compete for the title. This isn't used to say that the Mavs are or will be the Lakers or the Bulls. It is used to show that when people compare the Mavs taking their lumps to the Lakers and Bulls taking their lumps.
When in truth, both the Bulls and Lakers were waiting for their other star/superstar player to come into their own (pippen and bryant).

No, the Mavs aren't the Lakers or the Bulls. Not at all. This is just to illustrate that you cannot compare the Lakers and the Bulls taking their lumps and then apply it to the Mavericks situation. Why not? Because the reason why the Lakers and the Bulls took their lumps was because of:
They had a budding superstar/star that was coming into his or her own (her in the case of scottie pippen)
Other competing teams had superstars in their prime such as the Lakers and the Pistons.

It had little to do with the "taking their lumps" theory

Hoopsmeister · 06-19-2002, 11:47 AM

<< Chemistry is important, but it is that SUPERSTAR in his prime that is the difference and we are 4 years away from Dirk being there. >>

I agree that a superstar in his prime is the key, surrounded by a team that knows how to play with him and around him. I disagree however with the 4 year timetable for Dirk. I think Dirk is coming into his prime now and should fully hit his stride in the next 2 years.

TheKid · 06-19-2002, 11:50 AM

Your points are very valid stressboy... Actually that's pretty much the catch 22. I think for the most part everyone realizes it that we are NOT as good as the Lakers or Kings BUT we have the ability to beat them. The Spurs I think are actually in the state that you're saying we're going to be in. They built around Duncan each year, thinking they have what it takes to get to the championship. However I think after this past season, they're going to give it another run for Robinson but they'll make the same youth movement but they have two young people to build around in Duncan and Parker.

However as a Mavs fan I think we all recognize that with Fin and Nash they have probably another 3 years of playing at a high level but after that, they'll both start to decline a bit while Dirk will probably really be hitting his stride.

I think that's when the delimma will come up do we cut bait or try to continue to build around those three. Right now, I think they can't really think too far in the future. However in a year or two, I think you're right, they have to think about the franchise. To trade away Nash or Fin or both for that matter right now, it simply says to me you're saying we're looking at getting a championship in about 4 or 5 years but I think the Mavs should be looking to get one next year.

Murphy3 · 06-19-2002, 11:51 AM

<< but it is that SUPERSTAR in his prime that is the difference and we are 4 years away from Dirk being there. >>

I'm not sure that he's 4 years away from being in his prime but if he is, God help the rest of the NBA.

The Mavs must play for the championship now because two-thirds of their core is in its prime. No, their best player isn't in his prime but unfortunately, the mavs have no other budding stars that will be in his prime for the extended amount of time that dirk will be in his prime..

the taking lumps theory is highly overrated. if it wasn't overrated, well, then by the time the mavs take their sufficient amount of lumps using the comparison that many have made (the bulls and the lakers), fin and nash will probably be starting their slide and the window may have closed for that version of the big three

Murphy3 · 06-19-2002, 11:57 AM

which is my point thekid,
the theory of "taking their lumps" and "be patient" doesn't work with this group.

Why not? because the mavs have a window of opportunity with this group. they must play for the title NOW.

I believe the team is playing for the title now but I'm tired of hearing:
the "taking their lumps" theory
and
"be patient"

this core has a window of 3-4 years.
Patience isn't something the mavs can afford to have too much of

TheKid · 06-19-2002, 12:29 PM

Exactly why I'm not really ready to use the exceptions on someone who I think will take a year or two to adjust. I say use the exception on someone you think can come in and help right away.

Granted someone may not work out exactly but it would show me the fan, the team is trying to win now instead of trying to plan for the future.

Murphy3 · 06-19-2002, 12:41 PM

which is why if some of the players mentioned to come in wouldn't make sense if they were the only major addition

i think we're on the same page here

Ghost Face · 06-19-2002, 01:37 PM

The simple answer to why everyone thinks it takes so much time to compete for a title is because even the greatest players of our era(MJ&Shaq) have taken years to win their first title. M.J. definately took his share of "lumps" against the Pistons before he got better, his team got better around him and the Pistons and Celtics began to deteriorate. It takes time to assemble a winning roster from scratch. The Bulls kept their Top 5-6 players(MJ,Pippen,Ho.Grant,Cartwright,Paxson/B.J. Armstrong) intact for a few seasons before they won a championship. That lineup looks pretty complete in retrospect, but Cartwright/Paxson/Armstrong don't ring fear into the heart of the enemy, except when employed as a cohesive unit. Horace Grant was a high draft pick that put up steady, but unspectacular and Raef-like scoring and rebound numbers his first few seasons. Pippen was brought along at almost the exact same time, so the Bulls had less age between their players but they definately benefited from playing together for a few losing playoff seasons. Sacramento has largely done the same thing (C-Webb,Christie,Peja,Vlade,BoJax,Pollard), but swapped at point guard. Bibby had the offseason to acclimate himself to the Kings, whereas Raef has not had the time. "Lumps" can be taken anytime, whether it is the preseason or Game 7 and they rarely ever make you worse. If someone is tired of waiting and thinks that people who suggest patience are just pacifists with no interest in fixing this Mavs team, than I believe that person is underestimating the importance of team building. This is the NBA and the team with the best superstar and a strong supproting cast wins almost everytime. To attain both of these things, it takes time.

Dooby · 06-19-2002, 01:49 PM

I started to read this whole thread, but it gave me tired-head.

I want to point out 2 statements on this "seasoning thing". Which, generally, I think is bullcrap.

Houston traded one of its top 3 players mid-season for Drexler and won a championship that same year.

SAC took a team to the final minute of Game 7 of the Conference Finals after swapping starting point guards.

Philly made a mid-season trade for Mutombo and still went to the finals.

Playing together has value. Yes, I agree with that. But superior talent will beat familiarity every time.

Now, playoff experience is another matter. Even then, rarely will the more experienced team beat a team with better talent. Playoff experience didn't get the Jazz over the Mavs in 2001.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-19-2002, 02:02 PM

<< I started to read this whole thread, but it gave me tired-head.

I want to point out 2 statements on this "seasoning thing". Which, generally, I think is bullcrap.

Houston traded one of its top 3 players mid-season for Drexler and won a championship that same year.

SAC took a team to the final minute of Game 7 of the Conference Finals after swapping starting point guards.

Philly made a mid-season trade for Mutombo and still went to the finals.

Playing together has value. Yes, I agree with that. But superior talent will beat familiarity every time.

Now, playoff experience is another matter. Even then, rarely will the more experienced team beat a team with better talent. Playoff experience didn't get the Jazz over the Mavs in 2001. >>

Look at the trades u just brought up Rockets got DRexler Kings got Bibby 6ers got Mutombo. If u noticed all of those teams traded to get 1 player. And none have succeded to get a ring other than the Rockets with Drexler. Kings were all ready a good team before they got Bibby but being how inconsistent JWILL is any pg could have made the Kings a better squad.

And as far as the Jazz go the reason why they didnt get anywhere is because every year a team was better than them. Bulls were always better than the Jazz. Now its 02 and I can say about 5 teams are better than them now.

Dooby · 06-19-2002, 02:46 PM

<< Look at the trades u just brought up Rockets got DRexler Kings got Bibby 6ers got Mutombo. If u noticed all of those teams traded to get 1 player. And none have succeded to get a ring other than the Rockets with Drexler. Kings were all ready a good team before they got Bibby but being how inconsistent JWILL is any pg could have made the Kings a better squad.

And as far as the Jazz go the reason why they didnt get anywhere is because every year a team was better than them. Bulls were always better than the Jazz. Now its 02 and I can say about 5 teams are better than them now. >>

My point is that superior talent wins. Wins 90% of the time. Talent beats experience; talent beats familiarity. While I believe that the experience of playing as a cohesive unit over time does benefit a team, the more talented team will still win. One should never pass up an opportunity to improve one's talent for the sake of consistency.

P.S.-My only point about the Jazz was that the more experienced, more familiar team that has played together for years, was beaten by the upstart Mavs with superior talent.

Ghost Face · 06-19-2002, 02:52 PM

From Drexler's Bio:
Traded by the Trail Blazers with Tracy Murray to the Houston Rockets for Otis Thorpe, the rights to Marcelo Nicola, and a conditional 1995 first-round draft pick (19th selection overall) on 2/14/95.

Otis Thorpe was a very nice player, but having a frount court of Olajuwon, Horry and Mario Elie made the trade possible and the 19th pick is something the Mavs won't have to offer as trade bait anytime soon. (That #19 draft pick in 1995 was 2 slots ahead of Michael Finley who went #21 and 1 slot behind Theo Ratliff who went at #18). The Blazers traded up to select Shawn Respert and the Pistons took Randolph Childress with the #19 pick.

The other trades did not work and now the Sixers are entertaining ideas of trading Mutombo away. If we did a Sixers move and traded Raef to the Eastern Conference, we would rue the day when he becomes an Eastern Conf. All-Star.

Also, the Nets added Jason Kidd and then followed the Sixers in this years finals, but making the Finals out of the East shouldn't even count. Jason Williams(now of Memphis) is a poor example, because he actually stunted the teams development while he was there. The Mavs don't have a starting player that you could definately say needs to be rooted out, in favor of anyone, just to make the team better.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-19-2002, 02:54 PM

Well ok u might be right about saying the most talented team wins but 90% of the time? Do u think that Lakers are more talented than the Kings? Or hell I dotn think they are more talented than the Mavs or Blazers. But Lakers have played for some many years thats why they are the champs for 3 years straight. Utah took Kings all the way to the last game and u could probaly argue that if Stocktons 3 would have went in maybe Utah would have been in Kings place.

Dooby · 06-19-2002, 03:10 PM

<< Well ok u might be right about saying the most talented team wins but 90% of the time? Do u think that Lakers are more talented than the Kings? Or hell I dotn think they are more talented than the Mavs or Blazers. But Lakers have played for some many years thats why they are the champs for 3 years straight. Utah took Kings all the way to the last game and u could probaly argue that if Stocktons 3 would have went in maybe Utah would have been in Kings place. >>

Top 2 players on team? No question Lakers have more talent.

Top 3 players on team? The third guy on both the Kings and Mavs is more talented than the third guy on the Lakers.

Top 5 players on team? Same as above.

Top 12 players on team? Same as above.

That being said, Shaq + Kobe + 3 Laker girls could make the Finals in the East. Might make the playoffs in the West. You surround any kind of ability at the other 3 starting spots and the Lakers will be successful. I think they are proving it now.

So, yes, I think the sum value of talent of the starters on the Lakers is better than the sum value of talent of the starters on the Kings or Mavs. Regardless of the fact that the Kings or Mavs may have better talent going 5 deep, the Laker's top 2 players are that much better than every body else's.

BTW, I am not a Laker fan adn think Kobe is punkassbitch.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-19-2002, 03:15 PM

<<

<< Well ok u might be right about saying the most talented team wins but 90% of the time? Do u think that Lakers are more talented than the Kings? Or hell I dotn think they are more talented than the Mavs or Blazers. But Lakers have played for some many years thats why they are the champs for 3 years straight. Utah took Kings all the way to the last game and u could probaly argue that if Stocktons 3 would have went in maybe Utah would have been in Kings place. >>

Top 2 players on team? No question Lakers have more talent.

Top 3 players on team? The third guy on both the Kings and Mavs is more talented than the third guy on the Lakers.

Top 5 players on team? Same as above.

Top 12 players on team? Same as above.

That being said, Shaq + Kobe + 3 Laker girls could make the Finals in the East. Might make the playoffs in the West. You surround any kind of ability at the other 3 starting spots and the Lakers will be successful. I think they are proving it now.

So, yes, I think the sum value of talent of the starters on the Lakers is better than the sum value of talent of the starters on the Kings or Mavs. Regardless of the fact that the Kings or Mavs may have better talent going 5 deep, the Laker's top 2 players are that much better than every body else's. >>

I disagree with u hear both Kings and Mavs are about 9 players deep that can start for the Lakers. Lakers have Shaq who is the most dominate player in the NBA and they have Kobe. Fox and Horry are all good players but I still would say Kings and Mavs have more talent than Lakers. Lakers have no point guard so that right there already makes Kings and Lakers more talented.

Dooby · 06-19-2002, 03:20 PM

Read my post again. And comment to my post and not what you think I said.

I don't care that Shaq and Kobe is all the Laker's have. I don't dispute that. I am saying that by and large it doesn't matter who the starting point guard is. The Lakers are still more talented.

Argue the point I made rather than the point you wish I made.

Dooby · 06-19-2002, 03:24 PM

Allow me to rephrase: The difference in ability (I struggle to refer to it as talent) between Shaq and Vlade is so great that it greatly exceeds the difference in talent between Derrick Fisher and Nash or Bibby.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-19-2002, 03:33 PM

<< Allow me to rephrase: The difference in ability (I struggle to refer to it as talent) between Shaq and Vlade is so great that it greatly exceeds the difference in talent between Derrick Fisher and Nash or Bibby. >>

I wasnt trying to argue the point u made I said that I disagree that the Lakers are more talented than the Kings or Mavs. Lakers have Shaq. That right there makes them the best team in the NBA without him they are no better than the Twolves. If u had a chance to take NVE Finley Dirk Nash or would u take Kobe and Shaq talented wise not on a team. In other words is Shaq and Kobe more talented than Dirk, Finley, Nash, and Nick? Thats basically waht ur saying.

Dooby · 06-19-2002, 03:45 PM

<< In other words is Shaq and Kobe more talented than Dirk, Finley, Nash, and Nick? Thats basically waht ur saying. >>

Yup. How much would you trade to get Shaq and Kobe? [This is beyond fantasy land, I know]. Or if you were the Lakers, what would it take to give up Shaq and Kobe? Would the Lakers take Dirk, Fin, Nash and Nick for Shaq and Kobe? Probably not.

Any one of (or all) the 3 other starters on the Lakers could be jettisoned tomorrow and replaced by players who are no better than top 15 at their position and the Lakers would still be favored to win the NBA. Nobody would even notice. So, "seasoning" must not be that important.

Murphy3 · 06-19-2002, 03:51 PM

i wouldn't say that shaq and kobe are more talented than dirk, fin, nash, nve, and raef...
but, the lakers starting lineup is better than the mavs starting lineup solely because of shaq and kobe.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-19-2002, 03:51 PM

<< [i]

<<
Any one of (or all) the 3 other starters on the Lakers could be jettisoned tomorrow and replaced by players who are no better than top 15 at their position and the Lakers would still be favored to win the NBA. Nobody would even notice. So, "seasoning" must not be that important. >>

Exactly and thats because they have Shaq. If I were Lakers I wouldnt trade anyone for Shaq because they are the champs but they arent the best talented team. But what I was saying was talented wise Shaq and Kobe are better than NVE Mike Dirk and Nash? No I dont think so or what about Bibby Webber Stojakovic and Divacs? Naw. Now that doesent mean I would trade Shaq and Kobe for them but lets face it reason why Lakers are successful is because they have Shaq. Bulls were successful because they had the most dominated player in the NBA. Lakers are successful because they have the most dominated player in the NBA with Shaq. If Lakers didnt have Kobe they would still have 3 rings. If u asked Phil to trade the Kings bench for the Lakers he sure as hell would do it. Or if u asked him to trade his role players for the Kings role players he would do it also.

Dooby · 06-19-2002, 03:56 PM

I thought the point of this thread was that it took time to compete for a title. That you had to let your players play together. That you should not constantly shuffle the roster.

I think it is bunk and that you improve your team however and whenever possible because talent wins

Now we are talking about the greatness of Shaq, which I think proves my point. Team with best players=championship.

Murphy3 · 06-19-2002, 03:58 PM

dooby, not at all..i'm saying that the theory where you have to take your lumps in the playoffs is b.s.

if you look at many teams, it's simply getting the right pieces in place... drexler going to houston.. kobe growing into a star in LA...the same with Pippen in chicago

it wasn't about taking your lumps in the playoffs..