ESPN Article: Are Lakers most star-studded team ever?

[First]

ESPN Article: Are Lakers most star-studded team ever?

Pretty interesting composition of past great teams. Can anyone who watched the 80's Lakers and 80's Celtics or the 60's Celtics comment?

 

[ElFenix]

no, the other lakers were better.

 

[First]

Bump for more discussion.

 

[KahunaHube]

no
they ahve hte most hatest individual players tho

 

[CrazyDe1]

They might be the most star studded team but I have a feeling it's not going to work. When the US olympic team kept losing games at the last olympics to more organized teams with way less talent I remember thinking to myself if they just tossed out the NBA champions, at the time the Lakers, even though I hate them, I bet they'd dominate caues they're used to playing with each other. The more I look at the Lakers the more I think that the players they had were perfect for that team. Everyone complains about no supporting cast but whos going to excel in a system where they have to come in cold and are expected to hit shots without being included in the offense normally? You just cna't have that many stars on a team and no role players...

 

[JawaJedi]

THe first few Dream Teams were successful. Granted, they didn't have to run a complicated offense like Tex Winter's Triangle, but still, the US national teams were successful till the last time around with Pierce and company. So its obviously plausible for the 4 to work together.

As far as them being star-studded, I think this team is more star-studded than those other teams with perhaps the exception of the Rockets because the Lakers this year are adding two players who made their name elsewhere (so did the Rockets), whereas many of those other teams listed by ESPN had players who made their names with those teams, rather than being assembled after the fact.

edit: some spelling

 

[Corporate Thug]

god, there as old as stars.

btw, i was thinking of something (opinions welcomed if it is possible): spurs are gonna have a lot of $ to spare next year. robinson gives them $10 mil and i highly doubt they'll resign steve smith which will give them another 9 mil. i rounded off here, it's closer to 20 mil. can they throw 7 mil Kidds way and use the other 13 to scoop up Zo and howard? how is this for star studded:

C: T. Duncan
PF: A. Morning
SF: J. Howard
PG: J. Kidd
OG (off guard): who is it? bowen?

 

[JawaJedi]

Their 2 guard would probably be Ginobili or Stephen Jackson.

 

[fumbduck]

Yes.

 

[Double Trouble]

I watched a lot of NBA games in the 80's (being a Celtics fan), and the Celtics / Lakers of the 80's were incredible teams. Still, the Lakers next year will have 4 potential hall of famers on their starting lineup. Sure, Malone and Payton are not what they once were, but they are experienced tough players (physically and mentally). Barring injury to one or more of those 4 players, I'd say the Lakers will win back the crown this year.

The Celtics teams of the 80's included guys like Bird, McHale, Parish (the Chief!), DJ (Dennis Johnson), Bill Walton, Cowen etc. those were some great teams (with KC Jones as the coach). Had it not been for the fact that those great Cetics teams played at the same time as the "showtime" Lakers, they would have won 6 or 7 championships....

The Lakers of the 80's were truly amazing. Yeah, Shaq is probably dominating unlike anything we've seen in recent years, but the Lakers of the 80's were absolutely breathtaking with their "showtime", and if I had to put money on it, I'd say the Showtime teams would beat the current Lakers (of the past few years) hands down every year. Why? Because a great team is better than two great players and a few dolts......

Hoops has just not been the same since the rivalry of Magic and Bird. Ever since then it's been "ugly" b-ball, the Bad Boys, the "Jordan and the Jordanairs" Bulls, the emotionless efficient Spurs etc. The flair, style and skills of the Celts and Lakers hasn't been equalled since. The other thing that made it great was that there were 2 awesome teams with awesome players in a big rivalry. Having one great team (like the Bulls) is fine, but a real rivalry with great players on both sides is better.

 

[Wingznut]

Maybe the "most star-studded" basketball team ever.

But the 2002 Detroit Red Wings own the title for "most star-studded" team ever, with 9 Hall-of-Famers... Although there are double the number of players on the hockey roster, so the ratio is close.

 

[prontospyder]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
Maybe the "most star-studded" basketball team ever.

But the 2002 Detroit Red Wings own the title for "most star-studded" team ever, with 9 Hall-of-Famers... Although there are double the number of players on the hockey roster, so the ratio is close.

Wow..9! It shows that superstars can put their egos aside and work together towards a championship. I'm glad Phil Jackson is the coach of the Lakers now.

 

[prontospyder]

Originally posted by: tagej
I watched a lot of NBA games in the 80's (being a Celtics fan), and the Celtics / Lakers of the 80's were incredible teams. Still, the Lakers next year will have 4 potential hall of famers on their starting lineup. Sure, Malone and Payton are not what they once were, but they are experienced tough players (physically and mentally). Barring injury to one or more of those 4 players, I'd say the Lakers will win back the crown this year.

The Celtics teams of the 80's included guys like Bird, McHale, Parish (the Chief!), DJ (Dennis Johnson), Bill Walton, Cowen etc. those were some great teams (with KC Jones as the coach). Had it not been for the fact that those great Cetics teams played at the same time as the "showtime" Lakers, they would have won 6 or 7 championships....

The Lakers of the 80's were truly amazing. Yeah, Shaq is probably dominating unlike anything we've seen in recent years, but the Lakers of the 80's were absolutely breathtaking with their "showtime", and if I had to put money on it, I'd say the Showtime teams would beat the current Lakers (of the past few years) hands down every year. Why? Because a great team is better than two great players and a few dolts......

Hoops has just not been the same since the rivalry of Magic and Bird. Ever since then it's been "ugly" b-ball, the Bad Boys, the "Jordan and the Jordanairs" Bulls, the emotionless efficient Spurs etc. The flair, style and skills of the Celts and Lakers hasn't been equalled since. The other thing that made it great was that there were 2 awesome teams with awesome players in a big rivalry. Having one great team (like the Bulls) is fine, but a real rivalry with great players on both sides is better.

Nicely said but I think the top 4 teams in the West (Dallas, LA, San Antonio, Sacramento) have a pretty good rivalry going on. I heard the NBA may eliminate the Western/Eastern conferences and split them into 6 divisions. That may make the playoffs alittle more interesting.

 

[Miramonti]

Their legacy will be determined by their success.

If they don't win a championship, it will basically be an embarrassment to their legacy.

 

[prontospyder]

Some comments from Magic, who was one of the people instrumental in getting Payton and Malone to LA:

"They're both good guys," Magic Johnson said. "Here come two other good guys with the good guys we already have. What people don't realize, you don't have to worry about chemistry. People are worried there won't be enough shots. These guys are not about that. They're at a time in their career they want one thing, and that's the championship. If they were worried about that, they would have gone to other teams, because they would have had more shots and more money. But, at the end of the day, they said, 'We're going to get the championship.' That championship will turn into money."

"It'll work easy," Johnson said. "With the triangle offense, it's better for them. If it was another offense, it'd be tough. But, because of the triangle, everybody is spread out, nobody will be clogging the middle. When we rest Shaq now, the triangle offense will still be effective, because Karl Malone will move into that spot.

"That's why this is so great. Now we will always have two scorers on the floor. Before, you couldn't rest Kobe and Shaq together. You can rest both of them together. Foul trouble. Injuries. The things that plagued us last year won't hurt us, because we've got enough depth to handle those situations. You've got to play everybody on the court now. There's no cheating no more.

"I'll tell you another thing that's going to happen, we're going to get easier baskets, because we're going to run. I see a little bit of Showtime again, because Gary will push that ball, Karl will fill that lane. And Kobe in the other lane? Ooooh, man!"

Link

 

[jagr10]

I think Payton and Malone know their roles. THat's why they took such low salaries.

The hard thing for other teams will be "who do you double team?".

 

[Flatline]

Whether they win a championship or not, this should be fun to watch.
I think they could take about anyone from this forum as the SF and beat a lot of teams ;-)

 

[LakAttack]

People keep lumping Payton and Malone together as old men, but I think the Glove still has a lot in the tank. I can't think of 3 PGs in the league RIGHT NOW that I would take over him. Kidd or Nash - that's about it. I find this team troubling (as a non-Lakers fan).

 

[Flatline]

Yeah, the Lakers with a point guard who can actually defend would be scary enough, but GP can score and rebound too! And now they're getting quite possibly the greatest power forward of all time (admittedly toward the end of his career but...)? Frightening!

 

[Parrotheader]

Originally posted by: tagej
I watched a lot of NBA games in the 80's (being a Celtics fan), and the Celtics / Lakers of the 80's were incredible teams. Still, the Lakers next year will have 4 potential hall of famers on their starting lineup. Sure, Malone and Payton are not what they once were, but they are experienced tough players (physically and mentally). Barring injury to one or more of those 4 players, I'd say the Lakers will win back the crown this year.

The Celtics teams of the 80's included guys like Bird, McHale, Parish (the Chief!), DJ (Dennis Johnson), Bill Walton, Cowen etc. those were some great teams (with KC Jones as the coach). Had it not been for the fact that those great Cetics teams played at the same time as the "showtime" Lakers, they would have won 6 or 7 championships....

The Lakers of the 80's were truly amazing. Yeah, Shaq is probably dominating unlike anything we've seen in recent years, but the Lakers of the 80's were absolutely breathtaking with their "showtime", and if I had to put money on it, I'd say the Showtime teams would beat the current Lakers (of the past few years) hands down every year. Why? Because a great team is better than two great players and a few dolts......

Hoops has just not been the same since the rivalry of Magic and Bird. Ever since then it's been "ugly" b-ball, the Bad Boys, the "Jordan and the Jordanairs" Bulls, the emotionless efficient Spurs etc. The flair, style and skills of the Celts and Lakers hasn't been equalled since. The other thing that made it great was that there were 2 awesome teams with awesome players in a big rivalry. Having one great team (like the Bulls) is fine, but a real rivalry with great players on both sides is better.

I agree. Watching Jordan play was nothing short of amazing. Without a doubt the greatest player ever IMO. But it still lacked the more pure enjoyment I got watching the balance we saw in the Lakers and Celtics in the 80s when they spread the ball around to numerous players (granted, most of whom were superstars) and didn't always have to rely on only one or two key people to pull them through. The Lakers have a chance to do that now. They just don't have a natural rival that appears to be of remotely the same caliber which doesn't make it quite as intriguing (although it'll still be interesting to see how they do.) I still think there are quite a few teams who can give them troubles though.

 

[Spac3d]

No. Lakers and Celtics in 80's were better imo. I am too young to have watched any NBA from before the 80's

I also don't know how successful this team will be ... that is way too much ego on that floor. I think it will work for the first half of the season, but they will fall apart.

 

[NeoV]

Those of you saying this won't work need to realize something...if Payton or Malone didn't realize up front that their roles as a scorer were going to be reduced, they woulnd't have signed for a LOT less than they could have received playing elsewhere. They went to LA to take their best shot at getting a ring, not scoring as many points as possible.

I think you'll see Malone average 12-15pts a game, Payton around 10-12, with about the same amount of assists, Shaq will be low 20's, Kobe about the same....now they can bring D.Fisher and D.George off the bench, I think they did tremendously well to get Cook and Walton in the draft, K.Rush should actually contribute this year, unlike last year...so they have depth as well to go with that starting talent. I say that as long as everyone stays healthy, Shaq comes to camp in shape, and the Kobe legal issues dissolve, these guys should easily win 60+ games and the NBA title.

My question is, if the Lakers win the title, does Malone stick around, or go elsewhere to pursue the scoring record?

 

[Flatline]

He would probably return to Utah to finish his career there

 

[EXman]

No

Johnson
Jabbar
Scott
Worthy
Green

remember that team? those 5 were stars and could play together. we'll see how the egos flare up next year it should be fun to watch.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: shady06
god, there as old as stars.

btw, i was thinking of something (opinions welcomed if it is possible): spurs are gonna have a lot of $ to spare next year. robinson gives them $10 mil and i highly doubt they'll resign steve smith which will give them another 9 mil. i rounded off here, it's closer to 20 mil. can they throw 7 mil Kidds way and use the other 13 to scoop up Zo and howard? how is this for star studded:

C: T. Duncan
PF: A. Morning
SF: J. Howard
PG: J. Kidd
OG (off guard): who is it? bowen?

Why would the Spurs take Mourning, when they could go for Garnett next season?

Oh and they would probably put Parker or Ginobli at the off guard.