Disclaimer: You are looking at a post I wrote some time ago. The information and opinions contained within may be outdated and may differ from my current views. Please proceed accordingly.

Lakers Guaranteed Champs? Not So Fast

Jul 11, 2003 11:42 AM
Tags:
WIth Karl Malone and Gary Payton joining the NBA's Los Angeles Lakers, lots of people have assumed they'll be the next champs. I'm not so sure; in fact, I'd wager it'll be the Spurs again. (No, I'm not literally betting on it.)
In that light, here are my top ten reasons why you shouldn't be so sure of a Lakers title in 2003-2004, in no particular order:
  1. The Lakers still aren't as deep as Dallas, Indiana or Sacramento, and none of those teams made it to the Finals last year.
  2. The Lakers already tried this with Glen Rice and Mitch Richmond, and failed miserably.
  3. The Triangle Offense is unproved with a scoring PF and a scoring PG.
  4. You don't know what the chemistry will be like. Those four are all totally different personality types, and there was enough tension between Shaq and Kobe.
  5. Malone and Payton have never had to set aside their egos before and be second-fiddle, much less third- and fourth-, for the course of a season (see #4 above).
  6. The Spurs might still sign Kidd, Mourning and others.
  7. Shaq has had injury problems and missed quite a few games recently.
  8. Lots of superstars does not guarantee victory; just look at the last Dream Team. The talent gap between them and the international squads was much greater than that between L.A. and the NBA's other elite teams.
  9. Malone and Payton's productivity has dropped in recent years (especially the former), and can't help but do so when someone else is taking all the shots.
  10. All it takes is one bad series for them to get bounced from the playoffs.

Comments: Lakers Guaranteed Champs? Not So Fast

Don't forget the issue regarding whether or not Kobe's issues will be resolved.

Also, and I show my ignorance here (as I do not regularly read the sports page), did they resign the Zen Master? I heard he was retiring.

Posted by: Daniel Grossberg on July 11, 2003 3:00 PM | permalink

All of that is true, but given that Kidd and Mourning have now signed with the Nets, the Lakers still look like the league's best team on paper. Why?

1) Dallas may be deeper, but they still can't play defense, and they still can't score inside.

2) Sacramento is also deeper, but Webber never stays healthy, Bibby is tremendously overrated, and Vlade is on the downswing.

3) Without Kidd or Mourning or Robinson (cuz of retirement), San Antonio looks like the fourth best team on paper, and while Parker is good, he still won't be an elite point for at least another year or so.

4) The Nets look good on paper, but Mourning's health is durability is unproven, and Mutombo blows (and they can't win without an inside presence against the West's best)

5) Indiana is the East's version of Portland (without all the criminal activity), and the rest of the East blows ass. Even my beloved Celts.

That said, the Lakers aren't guaranteed a championship just by signing these two. But they're MUCH better than they were last year, and they were just a notch below championship caliber even then.....

And yes, I know this is the single longest post in recorded history....

Posted by: Nicardo on July 11, 2003 6:55 PM | permalink

No more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.