View Single Post
Old December 11 2012, 10:03 PM   #61
Rear Admiral
gblews's Avatar
Location: So. Cal.
View gblews's Twitter Profile
Re: NBA 2012-13 Discussion

Alidar Jarok wrote: View Post
Well, Chamberlain was traded to the Lakers (I assume he demanded it, but it's mostly because Los Angeles could afford to pay a fuckton of money).
He was traded to the Lakers because they were the team willing to put up the assets and were bold enough to make the deal. As for "demanding" to be traded, that didn't carry any weight back in 1969. There was no free agency. The 76ers received some good young talent for Wilt, and were willing to pull the trigger in a move to go in a different direction. As for money, again, there was no free agency so every team in the league could technically have afforded Wilt.

Abdul-Jabbar was traded for as well, but I don't know the story behind that.
Kareem asked to be traded, preferrably to New York or L.A. or any big city. He wanted out of Milwaukee. The Lakers, BTW, didn't win a championship with Kareem until they drafted Magic, some 5 years after Kareem's acquisition.

I don't really consider Malone to be a Laker, but that was a weird situation of a team that looked like it could win but desperately needed something so a player took a last ditch chance to win by jumping on board. I'd have to think who else he could have signed with. Detroit, Sacramento, and San Antonio had big men. Maybe the Nets or the Celtics would have worked, but the team with Phil Jackson seemed like the smarter bet. Also, in the absence of Shaq, the Lakers had greater need.
"Desperatly needed"? The Lakers were one year removed from 3 straight championships and still had a very servicable Shaquille and a young Kobe just entering his prime AND Phil Jackson. Not exactly sure what your point is here either but Karl knew (as did most others) that the Lakers, perennial contenders, were the choice if he was going to win a ring in the NBA. Oh, and sorry, but Karl was a Laker and even though they fell short of expectations, that team did make it to the Finals.

Fans, writers and players, moan about the allure of L.A., but the Clippers played here for years and all players could think of was a way out of L.A. It is not about Los Angeles, it is about winning and that is who the Lakers are.

So, aside from big pockets and well-timed good fortune, I'm not sure what it says.
"Big pockets" - "good fortune"

I'm afraid that this is the card most fans around the league like to play most when trying to explain the Lakers' continued success. But they have been winners since the early 50's when big pockets and "big markets" meant nothing. Even though they failed to win a championship in the late 50's, early 60's (after winning 5), they played in the Finals something like 10 times during this period.

Nope, it is A LOT more than money and luck. The Lakers as an organization have done what other NBA franchises have not: demanded, and achieved success at the highest levels over a span of 60 some odd years. Their closest rivals as a franchise (in any sport) would be the Yankees IF MLB had spent the last decade or two with a salary cap.

The Lakers have a history of boldness where other teams are timid -- constantly worried about their vaunted "future". That's why for most teams, their championships will always be; "in the future".
Duckman: I'll never forget the last thing my father said to me...
Cornfed: "Careful son, I don't think the safety's on"?
Duckman: BEFORE THAT!!!
gblews is offline