maybe irreparable was to strong, but i'm not sure: the shine is off the franchise. at this point, it will likely be a decade of non-contention before it's over, which is unheard of. hell, the last three years alone might have done the job in terms of knocking the franchise from its perch as maybe the most consistently successful sports franchise in all of american sports. but, it's not insurmountable--meaning, it's possible that one day the lakers return to contention (and likely stay there after that again due primarily to geographic and socio-cultural advantage). but it's going to take some luck. what made the lakers unique is that they didn't have to rely on that very often until now. annoys me that stern thought it was ok to smash that to bits simply because other franchises couldn't enjoy the same success. i think he underestimated the impact of the move for the lakers and the absolute non-impact of the move for the league, in general (meaning: this didn't usher in a new era of parity or somesuch). as real indicated, the smug fashion in which he discusses the incident is adding insult to injury. the league had assured everyone that they WOULD NOT interfere with demps in his role as general manager. teams were wary to negotiate with NO prior to this being made public. and then they jump in AFTER THE NEGOTIATION WAS COMPLETE to nix it. furthermore, they take what was a similar deal at the time (inferior in retrospect, i might add) to deliver paul to the same market. just some first class b*******. had they moved paul to milwaukee for a better package, i would have still been angry (no right to veto), but i could have possibly construed the act as something other than a blatant hatchet job on the league's flagship franchise. that he could rely on the media to giggle gleefully instead of taking the league to task further salts the wound. i'm angrier still.
