Changing of the Guard?

Last night the Lakers vanquished the defending NBA Champion Spurs, securing themselves a berth in the NBA Finals. This raises several pertinent questions:

1. How good are the Lakers?

During this playoff run, they've essentially demolished their opponents. The Nuggets were a 50 win team, and looked completely outclassed by this Laker team (in fact, they looked about like we expected the Atlanta Hawks to look against the Celtics). The Lakers then went on the beat the two participants in last year's Western Conference Finals, losing only three games in the process. Since fleecing the Grizzlies, the Lakers are an impressive 34-9 in games in which Kobe and Gasol have played. Charles Barkley says this team has more talent than the Laker teams of early this decade (you know, the ones that won three straight titles and had Shaquille O'Neal in the prime of his career).

While this teams has a lot to accomplish before it can be compared to those earlier Laker teams, Barkley's claim is not as absurd as it sounds at first glance. The 2000-2001 Lakers (the middle year of the three year reign) went 56-26, or one game worse than this year's brand. They were led by Shaq (28.7 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 3.7 apg, 2.8 bpg) and Kobe (28.5 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 5.0 apg, 1.7 spg). Derek Fisher chipped in with 11.5 ppg and 4 apg. And beyond that...Not much. Certainly nothing approaching Lamar Odom (the Lakers 3rd option). After the top 3, the main contributors (using the term generously) for the 00-01 edition were Rick Fox, Horace Grant, Isaiah "Don't Call Me J.R." Rider, Ron Harper, Brian Shaw and Robert "Not a Hall of Famer" Horry. If memory serves, Tyronne Lue contributed some valuable minutes in the finals guarding Iverson. But that's it. That group pales in comparison to the Lakers, who, beyond the top 3, can trot out a less athletic but better shooting and much smarter Derek Fisher, Jordan Farmar, Radmanovic, Vujacic, Luke Walton, and the mighty Ronny Turiaf. And this doesn't even include the injured Andrew Bynum (who would've been the third best player on the 01 Lakers) or Trevor Ariza (who would've been the second best athlete on the '01 Lakers...in fact, he might be the second best athlete on the '08 Lakers).

So what does this all mean? Do I think these Lakers are better than the threepeat Lakers? Certainly not yet. But this is an extraordinarily talented team with a fantastic mix of young and old and one of the three best players in the league in the middle of the prime of his career. They've made the NBA finals despite their best low post presence missing the entire 2nd half of the year. They're only going to get better, and the league will have a lot of catching up to do if they're going to prevent another Laker dynasty.

2. Is the Spurs' run over?

By and large, the answer to this appears to be yes. The Spurs are an ancient team by any objective standard. Unless you count Matt Bonner (and I don't) they have a grand total of one (count'em, one) regular contributor under the age of 30 (Mr. Eva Longoria is just 25). Duncan is 31 but an old 31. The toll of battling Shaq, Webber, Garnett et. al. all those years is starting to take its toll. Don't get me wrong, he's still an extraordinary player who performed extraordinarily well against the Lakers, but he has clearly lost some quickness and lift, as evidenced by his sudden decline in blocked shots per game, losing half a block per game from last season. While he is skilled enough to continue to play at an all nba level for another 4-5 years, he cannot be relied upon to carry a team on his back anymore.

Manu Ginobili is an interesting case. He's 30, arguably still in his prime, and earlier this season played some of the best basketball of any player in the NBA this year. The playoffs, however, were a completely different story. His injured ankle left him a shell of his former self. His long range shot was gone, he couldn't get to the basket, and he couldn't guard anyone. Is this bastardized version of Manu a sign of things to come? How soon will he lose that step that he needs to be an effective player? If it's sooner rather than later, then the Spurs are in a lot of trouble, because they don't have anyone in line to be his replacement. We've heard a lot about how well the Spurs have drafted over the years, but the problem with drafting foreigners like they have is that, while they give you NBA ready players, they give you 30-year-old NBA ready players with little shelf life whose tools may already be declining. I believe they still own the rights to Tiago Splitter, and he could inject some youth into this team...but he also could stay in Brazil.

I would rank the Lakers, New Orleans, and Utah ahead of this Spurs team for next year in the conference, and it's entirely possible the Suns, Rockets, Mavs, and even the upstart Portland Trailblazers with Greg Oden and this year's lottery pick could surpass them. Yes, I still believe the Spurs will have an upside that could win them the championship next year, but their margin for error is much much smaller than it's ever been before. And you better believe that the Western Conference (and some NBA TV executives) are delighted about that.