Jim Buss = End of the Lakers as we know them...

lakers_09tv wrote:

Weezy wrote:I never actually watched Magic play (aside from his quick return in like 95 or whenever that was) as I started watching the Lakers in '92, but even still watching him say "I gave them up, I gave the Lakers up" while laughing was kinda harsh. I think he might have gone a little too far there, I know he's not from LA and he sold his share of the team, but he's still majorly associated with the Lakers, longtime fans had to feel a little stung hearing he's given up the Lakers.

He was joking when he said "given up on the Lakers". During the interview you could see that he was pretty upset with how Jim Buss is running things.

I honestly don't understand the hate that Magic gets on Laker forums. He is part of the media now. He is suppose to speak his opinion else he wouldn't have a job on television. Its not like what he is saying isn't true.

Magic is a Laker and will always be a Laker.

This, I don't get the hate, and the hate has been going for several years now for a variety of bizarre reasons.

Magic still works for lakers?????

lakers_09tv wrote:

last stand wrote:Not defending Jim buss on that because he should make an effort to contact Kobe. However my guess is that Jim and probably Jerry still haven't forgiven Kobe for his tirade in 2007. When Kobe called dr. Buss an idiot among other things. You haven't seen much contact between Kobe and Jerry, and since Jim is basically all about his father I'm guessing that's related to this

You have an excuse for everything. Hilarious.

You have an insult for anyone/everyone who disagrees with you. And it's not that funny.

What we are hearing about what is going on with the Lakers is common with any big company or corporation. New boss comes in and lets many go in management because he wants his own people in place. He wanted no reminant of the Phil Jackson era which makes sense, Jim Buss wants his own guy coaching. I wouldn't be surprised if Mitch is gone at the end of the year. The excuse will be if they don't win a championship. Its tough to hear but this is very common occurrence in the business world.

Juronimo wrote:

lakers_09tv wrote:

Weezy wrote:I never actually watched Magic play (aside from his quick return in like 95 or whenever that was) as I started watching the Lakers in '92, but even still watching him say "I gave them up, I gave the Lakers up" while laughing was kinda harsh. I think he might have gone a little too far there, I know he's not from LA and he sold his share of the team, but he's still majorly associated with the Lakers, longtime fans had to feel a little stung hearing he's given up the Lakers.

He was joking when he said "given up on the Lakers". During the interview you could see that he was pretty upset with how Jim Buss is running things.

I honestly don't understand the hate that Magic gets on Laker forums. He is part of the media now. He is suppose to speak his opinion else he wouldn't have a job on television. Its not like what he is saying isn't true.

Magic is a Laker and will always be a Laker.

This, I don't get the hate, and the hate has been going for several years now for a variety of bizarre reasons.

Thank God there are others still like me around these parts...for a second there I thought I was getting too old to be around Lakerland....like its cool to hate on the Magic-man or something.

I agree that as a color commentator/NBA analyst, he isn't too good (I'm also looking at Shaq on TNT), but as a Lakers great, the man was awesome to watch. Team ball at its finest and that is why I was really wanting the CP3 deal to go through, cause this generation hasn't seen a true PG in Lakers gold. Seriously, the last man to really do it...and do it well...was Magic.

So I'm not trying to hold the seniority card here, but some of you young'ns seriously don't get it. Go back to the tape and truly appreciate what Magic has done. What he does now, really holds no comparison to what he did on the court. And frankly, he's looking out for Kobe in this case cause he wants a formidable team to put around the Kobester so that he can get his 6th ring. The speculation that he doesn't want Kobe to succeed is seriously horse manure, so the hate is truly unwarranted.

Lets just say that Magic defined the true meaning of Laker for Life....Dr. Buss offered Magic a 25 year deal to stay in purp n gold and Magic agreed. If anybody has an inside understanding about the Buss's, its Magic. So what he says about Jimmy is something I'm truly alarmed about.

I understand the hate/disappointment that fans have for Magic derailing the Lakers and cutting his career short with his premature retirement and the precedence that got him there....but he's a Laker through and through. As long as Jerry Buss is associated to the Lakers, Magic sincerely wants them to succeed...and btw, he's the vice president of the organization so he has earned the right to rip them a new one from time to time. In this case, would he be wrong (and lets not forget how LA ruthlessly banished alot of loyal members to this ball club over the lockout)?

Vasashi17 wrote:So I'm not trying to hold the seniority card here, but some of you young'ns seriously don't get it.

The speculation that he doesn't want Kobe to succeed is seriously horse manure.

he's a Laker through and through.

prudy1 wrote:What we are hearing about what is going on with the Lakers is common with any big company or corporation. New boss comes in and lets many go in management because he wants his own people in place. He wanted no reminant of the Phil Jackson era which makes sense, Jim Buss wants his own guy coaching. I wouldn't be surprised if Mitch is gone at the end of the year. The excuse will be if they don't win a championship. Its tough to hear but this is very common occurrence in the business world.

Actually its usually a little different in the business world. Typically when a business is at the top of its game and the CEO resigns, the company typically hires someone who will keep their existing system in place. For example, when Steve Jobbs resigned from Apple, Apple promoted Jobbs number 2 guy to keep things as they are. If the Lakers followed this model they would have considered Brian Shaw.

What you are talking about occurs when companies are failing and the company hires a CEO to take the company in a dramatically new direction. This typically occurs of takeovers of failing companies. Typically in these scenarios, the acquired companies management is all replaced with the company that acquired them.

What Jim Buss is doing, is typical of a business that is failing. I hardly call winning 2 out of the last three championships and getting to the the finals 3 out of the last 4 years failing. He's passing on a system that delivered the greatest success in the history of sports in order to build his own self ego. In the business world, this is the equivalent of dismantling a company like Apple just so you can prove you can do it yourself.

tttppp wrote:I don't think the problem is Jim Buss. I think the big problem is the lack of Phil Jackson. Phil Jackson provided a structure to the organization, so you knew which players you needed to win a championship. You don't get that under Mike Brown. Its clearly guesswork with Mike Brown and his system. You really don't know what players you need in his system. Also, its clear Mike Brown is a yes man. He's not going to stand up to Jim Buss, just like he never stood up to Lebron.

Also, another thing that is lacking is the financial backing of the owners. The Lakers have let a lot of good players go the past few years for nothing in return. You simply can't do that and expect to win.

You don't think Jim Buss is the problem yet you think the lack of financial backing from ownership has been a problem. Jim Buss=Ownership. That reasoning contradicts itself.

What is the reason for Brown to step up to Jim Buss? Has Jim been a thorn in Brown's side? Brown and Jimmy are buddies. You haven't figured that out yet? Everybody wanted Shaw or Adelman and Jimmy handed Brown the job out of nowhere.

Who are these key players that walked without the Lakers getting anything in return? If my memory serves me correctly, the word "few" usually means 3 and if you look back on the last 3 years we have a couple of rings.

the_Dude wrote:

tttppp wrote:I don't think the problem is Jim Buss. I think the big problem is the lack of Phil Jackson. Phil Jackson provided a structure to the organization, so you knew which players you needed to win a championship. You don't get that under Mike Brown. Its clearly guesswork with Mike Brown and his system. You really don't know what players you need in his system. Also, its clear Mike Brown is a yes man. He's not going to stand up to Jim Buss, just like he never stood up to Lebron.

Also, another thing that is lacking is the financial backing of the owners. The Lakers have let a lot of good players go the past few years for nothing in return. You simply can't do that and expect to win.

You don't think Jim Buss is the problem yet you think the lack of financial backing from ownership has been a problem. Jim Buss=Ownership. That reasoning contradicts itself.

What is the reason for Brown to step up to Jim Buss? Has Jim been a thorn in Brown's side? Brown and Jimmy are buddies. You haven't figured that out yet? Everybody wanted Shaw or Adelman and Jimmy handed Brown the job out of nowhere.

Who are these key players that walked without the Lakers getting anything in return? If my memory serves me correctly, the word "few" usually means 3 and if you look back on the last 3 years we have a couple of rings.

I can't put all the blame on Jim Buss for not resigning our role players because I don't know who made that decision. The decision to not resign these players was clearly 100% financial so it was ownership's fault for not keeping this team together. But this could easily be Jerry Buss' decision too. Somebody up there is cheap, I don't know who it is. If it was Jim Buss' decision, then yeah he's too blame too. This problem could be a lack of funds, if so its mostly likely Jerry Buss' decision. If the Lakers had the funds and were just too cheap to resign these players, then its more likely Jim Buss' fault.

Ariza, Odom, Turiaf, Brown, Sasha, and Farmar left with little to nothing in return. We would be in position to win a couple more rings if we kept these players. This team was originally capable of becoming a dynasty. Because of the lack of financial backing, the Lakers will only get two. Why do the Lakers even bother drafting players in the first place if they can't afford to resign them after they develop them? If money is that big of a problem, then just sell your draft picks.

tttppp wrote:

the_Dude wrote:

tttppp wrote:I don't think the problem is Jim Buss. I think the big problem is the lack of Phil Jackson. Phil Jackson provided a structure to the organization, so you knew which players you needed to win a championship. You don't get that under Mike Brown. Its clearly guesswork with Mike Brown and his system. You really don't know what players you need in his system. Also, its clear Mike Brown is a yes man. He's not going to stand up to Jim Buss, just like he never stood up to Lebron.

Also, another thing that is lacking is the financial backing of the owners. The Lakers have let a lot of good players go the past few years for nothing in return. You simply can't do that and expect to win.

You don't think Jim Buss is the problem yet you think the lack of financial backing from ownership has been a problem. Jim Buss=Ownership. That reasoning contradicts itself.

What is the reason for Brown to step up to Jim Buss? Has Jim been a thorn in Brown's side? Brown and Jimmy are buddies. You haven't figured that out yet? Everybody wanted Shaw or Adelman and Jimmy handed Brown the job out of nowhere.

Who are these key players that walked without the Lakers getting anything in return? If my memory serves me correctly, the word "few" usually means 3 and if you look back on the last 3 years we have a couple of rings.

I can't put all the blame on Jim Buss for not resigning our role players because I don't know who made that decision. The decision to not resign these players was clearly 100% financial so it was ownership's fault for not keeping this team together. But this could easily be Jerry Buss' decision too. Somebody up there is cheap, I don't know who it is. If it was Jim Buss' decision, then yeah he's too blame too. This problem could be a lack of funds, if so its mostly likely Jerry Buss' decision. If the Lakers had the funds and were just too cheap to resign these players, then its more likely Jim Buss' fault.

Ariza, Odom, Turiaf, Brown, Sasha, and Farmar left with little to nothing in return. We would be in position to win a couple more rings if we kept these players. This team was originally capable of becoming a dynasty. Because of the lack of financial backing, the Lakers will only get two. Why do the Lakers even bother drafting players in the first place if they can't afford to resign them after they develop them? If money is that big of a problem, then just sell your draft picks.

I could make another poll thread if you'd like? We all saw how the "Ariza AND Artest" topic turned out for you.

Uh ya, maybe let's not go with another pointless poll thread.

bruddahmanmatt wrote:
I could make another poll thread if you'd like? We all saw how the "Ariza AND Artest" topic turned out for you.

And we saw how you got the thread locked for picking fights.

tttppp wrote:

bruddahmanmatt wrote:
I could make another poll thread if you'd like? We all saw how the "Ariza AND Artest" topic turned out for you.

And we saw how you got the thread locked for picking fights.

the whole point of creating the thread was to avoid a 1v1 with you by illustrating how the vast majority of the members here disagreed with your baseless opinion on the matter. Once again you've stooped to making things up as the thread was locked since it was obvious that it wasn't going anywhere (the vote ended in a landslide in my favor) and to avoid any POTENTIAL issues.

http://www.clublakers.com/lakers-discussion/should-the-lakers-have-signed-ariza-and-artest-2009-t133231-60.html#p3563854

Nowhere did TIME single me out for picking a fight with you and I was completely civil throughout the entire discussion in that thread. FWIW, there's absolutely nothing wrong with taking it to the masses whenever we disagree. I figure it's better to open it up to the board for discussion than to have you get warned for foul language as has happened in the past when you and I have butted heads.

Good Lord, this "blame the world on Jim Buss" song & dance is getting comical.

The jury is still very much out on what kind of owner he'll be for us in the years to come, but I'm inclined to at least give the guy the benefit of the doubt. In his last couple of public comments/interviews, I have found him to be well-spoken and saying what Laker fans want to hear. We'll see how genuine and competent he is in the future, but between that and his endorsement of taking a flyer on Bynum turning out even better than we all had hoped, I'd say he's off to an OK start.

It wasn't too long ago that this board was LITTERED with short-sighted Kobe-jockers calling Dr. Buss "cheap" and a "terrible owner" when he had arguably accomplished more as an owner than any professional sports team owner in American history (and that was 2 rings ago).

Again, Jim might turn out to be the diabolical anti-Christ owner people around here like to make him out to be, but I don't think his actions to this point have warranted all this criticism.

TIME wrote:

Lakerman JSJ wrote:... Jim might turn out to be the diabolical anti-Christ owner ...

You know you're tempting me to selectively quote you here for signature material.

Well at least I qualified that statement with a "might". Out of context, it does look pretty sensational.

Oh, and I'd be honored.

Lakerman JSJ wrote:Good Lord, this "blame the world on Jim Buss" song & dance is getting comical.

The jury is still very much out on what kind of owner he'll be for us in the years to come, but I'm inclined to at least give the guy the benefit of the doubt. In his last couple of public comments/interviews, I have found him to be well-spoken and saying what Laker fans want to hear. We'll see how genuine and competent he is in the future, but between that and his endorsement of taking a flyer on Bynum turning out even better than we all had hoped, I'd say he's off to an OK start.

It wasn't too long ago that this board was LITTERED with short-sighted Kobe-jockers calling Dr. Buss "cheap" and a "terrible owner" when he had arguably accomplished more as an owner than any professional sports team owner in American history (and that was 2 rings ago).

Again, Jim might turn out to be the diabolical anti-Christ owner people around here like to make him out to be, but I don't think his actions to this point have warranted all this criticism.

Best post I've seen on the subject so far.

TIME wrote:

Lakerman JSJ wrote:... Jim might turn out to be the diabolical anti-Christ owner ...

You know you're tempting me to selectively quote you here for signature material.

tttppp wrote:

the_Dude wrote:

tttppp wrote:I don't think the problem is Jim Buss. I think the big problem is the lack of Phil Jackson. Phil Jackson provided a structure to the organization, so you knew which players you needed to win a championship. You don't get that under Mike Brown. Its clearly guesswork with Mike Brown and his system. You really don't know what players you need in his system. Also, its clear Mike Brown is a yes man. He's not going to stand up to Jim Buss, just like he never stood up to Lebron.

Also, another thing that is lacking is the financial backing of the owners. The Lakers have let a lot of good players go the past few years for nothing in return. You simply can't do that and expect to win.

You don't think Jim Buss is the problem yet you think the lack of financial backing from ownership has been a problem. Jim Buss=Ownership. That reasoning contradicts itself.

What is the reason for Brown to step up to Jim Buss? Has Jim been a thorn in Brown's side? Brown and Jimmy are buddies. You haven't figured that out yet? Everybody wanted Shaw or Adelman and Jimmy handed Brown the job out of nowhere.

Who are these key players that walked without the Lakers getting anything in return? If my memory serves me correctly, the word "few" usually means 3 and if you look back on the last 3 years we have a couple of rings.

I can't put all the blame on Jim Buss for not resigning our role players because I don't know who made that decision. The decision to not resign these players was clearly 100% financial so it was ownership's fault for not keeping this team together. But this could easily be Jerry Buss' decision too. Somebody up there is cheap, I don't know who it is. If it was Jim Buss' decision, then yeah he's too blame too. This problem could be a lack of funds, if so its mostly likely Jerry Buss' decision. If the Lakers had the funds and were just too cheap to resign these players, then its more likely Jim Buss' fault.

Ariza, Odom, Turiaf, Brown, Sasha, and Farmar left with little to nothing in return. We would be in position to win a couple more rings if we kept these players. This team was originally capable of becoming a dynasty. Because of the lack of financial backing, the Lakers will only get two. Why do the Lakers even bother drafting players in the first place if they can't afford to resign them after they develop them? If money is that big of a problem, then just sell your draft picks.

I agree that decisions are 100% financial but we also need to understand that financial decisions aren't only about how much we spend. It is easy to want to spend every penny that the Lakers have on re-signing players when it isn't our money. A good financial decision is about value. That is what the salary cap is all about and one of the main reasons we almost didn't have a season this year. That is what the draft is all about. Teams don't get to recruit kids out of college and outbid each other for their services. Our ownership is not cheap by any means. They just follow the same rules that every other team has to follow. I believe we have the 3rd highest payroll in the league and I'm pretty sure we aren't that far from the highest. Making the ownership seem like penny pinchers is a tired argument.

Ariza, Odom, Turiaf, Brown, Sasha, and Farmar. We have won championships since these players have left. Outside of Ariza, where are these other players in their NBA careers? Metta, Barnes, Blake and others were great attempts at making our team better through free agency but they haven't had the greatest season so far. Our FO has kept the core in place and have tried tweaking the role players. Kobe, Pau and Bynum are the top 20 highest players in the league. Let's give credit where credit is due. Ownership isn't losing games for us right now. We are just playing bad basketball.

the_Dude wrote:I agree that decisions are 100% financial but we also need to understand that financial decisions aren't only about how much we spend. It is easy to want to spend every penny that the Lakers have on re-signing players when it isn't our money. A good financial decision is about value. That is what the salary cap is all about and one of the main reasons we almost didn't have a season this year. That is what the draft is all about. Teams don't get to recruit kids out of college and outbid each other for their services. Our ownership is not cheap by any means. They just follow the same rules that every other team has to follow. I believe we have the 3rd highest payroll in the league and I'm pretty sure we aren't that far from the highest. Making the ownership seem like penny pinchers is a tired argument.

Ariza, Odom, Turiaf, Brown, Sasha, and Farmar. We have won championships since these players have left. Outside of Ariza, where are these other players in their NBA careers? Metta, Barnes, Blake and others were great attempts at making our team better through free agency but they haven't had the greatest season so far. Our FO has kept the core in place and have tried tweaking the role players. Kobe, Pau and Bynum are the top 20 highest players in the league. Let's give credit where credit is due. Ownership isn't losing games for us right now. We are just playing bad basketball.

The Lakers have not kept their core together. If they had kept their core together, they would be close to a championship this year. Let me give you an example to see if I can put this in perspective. The Lakers used to be much like the Yankees. The Yankees had a high payroll, kept all their players who performed, but also made tremendous revenue because they always put the best product on the table. The Braves for example in the 90s, always did a great job developing their players, but at the end of the year, they would let go of most of their players who performed for them. Fans got wind that the Braves were not serious about winning championships, so eventually people stopped coming to games. Trust me, even after they got a new stadium and the team still had some success, there were tons of empty seats at their games. This is what the Lakers risk doing. They may save a couple million by letting some role players walk, but they will eventually lose tens of millions in revenue because they are not committed to putting the best product on the floor.

Role players only play great when they are in a good system. Of course they are going to struggle on crappy teams. The way these role players are playing now is in no way indicative of how they would play if they were still on the Lakers.

Lakerman JSJ wrote:Good Lord, this "blame the world on Jim Buss" song & dance is getting comical.

The jury is still very much out on what kind of owner he'll be for us in the years to come, but I'm inclined to at least give the guy the benefit of the doubt. In his last couple of public comments/interviews, I have found him to be well-spoken and saying what Laker fans want to hear. We'll see how genuine and competent he is in the future, but between that and his endorsement of taking a flyer on Bynum turning out even better than we all had hoped, I'd say he's off to an OK start.

It wasn't too long ago that this board was LITTERED with short-sighted Kobe-jockers calling Dr. Buss "cheap" and a "terrible owner" when he had arguably accomplished more as an owner than any professional sports team owner in American history (and that was 2 rings ago).

Again, Jim might turn out to be the diabolical anti-Christ owner people around here like to make him out to be, but I don't think his actions to this point have warranted all this criticism.

Ahhh the voice of reason. Thank you! Totally agree. No one is anointing JB executive of the year, just saying more time needs to pass before judgment can be made.

It's WAY too early to jump ON the Jim Buss train, so it's WAY too early to even considering jumping off it.

Oh my freakin god. Someone needs to get over the whole "Jim Buss vetoed the Jermaine ONeal for Bynum and Odom." whine. It is really getting old.

Why are people complaining about Jim Buss when the real target should be Stern...for "basketball reasons."

Jim and Mitch secured our long term and immediate future with a stud PG (CP3) and C (Drew) to build another CHIP contender for years to come. Who'd thought we'd get screwed over by the league?

Anyone watching SportsCenter right now? Magic is on, said he talked to Jim Buss yesterday, and Jim told him that he reached out to Kobe, and Jim thanked Magic for what he said on TV, I assume about Kobe deserving to hear from him, or maybe that he was disappointed with the direction the team was headed in. Interesting if true, wonder how that conversation between Jim and Kobe went.