As the architect of the 1990s six-time champion Chicago Bulls, Jerry Krause was quoted as saying that players and coaches do not win championships; organizations do. Krause insisted he was misquoted because, he said, one word — “alone,” after “championships” — had been dropped.

Krause was nonetheless ridiculed, repeatedly, by Michael Jordan, whom Krause had not drafted. But the evidence tells us that Krause was contextually correct. For starters, consider the histories of big-market teams of comparable resources, the Los Angeles Lakers and the New York Knicks.

In a sport that has long been subjugated by corporate spin and commercial hard sell, we have become too conditioned to attaching championships not to organizations — with the exception of the San Antonio Spurs — but to individuals, as if they personally collected them like antique cars.

Jordan owns six. Magic Johnson has five, Larry Bird three, LeBron James two (and counting). And then there is Kobe Bryant, a self-styled Heir Jordan, whose desire to at least equal Jordan by winning a sixth NBA championship ring should not be in question because he has agreed to a salary-cap-clogging, two-year, $48.5 million deal with the Lakers.

The more pertinent question is whether the Lakers, in the post-Jerry Buss era and under the direction of his son Jim, are still an elite NBA organization — or beginning to resemble the one in New York that operates on the fill-the-building whimsy of an overmatched offspring of another formidable father.

Before the Bryant-less Lakers roared to a 27-point lead and held on to beat the Brooklyn Nets, 99-94, on Wednesday night in Brooklyn, Bryant held a Tuesday news conference in Washington to discuss the extension granted him before he had played a minute after surgery to repair the Achilles tendon he tore late last season. Sharp and acerbic as ever, he said, “This smart decision that they’ve made, business wise, can’t be revoked by the NBA.”

Everyone laughed at Bryant’s jab at David Stern, the league’s commissioner, for having invalidated the Lakers’ acquisition of Chris Paul before the start of the lockout-delayed 2011-12 season. Stern acted on behalf of a then-ownerless New Orleans franchise and undid what would have been the final high impact maneuver under Jerry Buss, who died in February.

Had Stern not intervened, Dwight Howard probably wouldn’t have spent an unhappy year with the Lakers; their long history of landing big stage-worthy stars would have continued; and Bryant would be working toward a return to a team far more capable of making a playoff run than the one that evened its record at 8-8 with its win Wednesday.

That’s not a bad record, all things considered — Howard gone, Bryant and Steve Nash out – and compared with how poorly the Nets and the Knicks have responded to early-season adversity. But the Lakers, creaky last season, have gotten younger, more athletic. The franchise does have a track record for success established by Jerry Buss, Jerry West and West’s front-office protégé, Mitch Kupchak.

“I’m very fortunate to be with an organization that understands how to take care of its players and put a great team out on the floor,” Bryant told Yahoo Sports. “They’ve figured out how to do both.”

In the past, yes, they have (including the acquisition of the 18-year-old Bryant in a deal with Charlotte after Bryant’s people bluffed the Nets out of drafting him). Not just with stars but with great role players – think Robert Horry, Derek Fisher and others who helped deliver 10 titles across the Jerry Buss years.

But what was the rush in re-signing Bryant, 35, before knowing if James would re-up with Dwyane Wade in Miami? The Lakers will still have cap room to sign a co-star, but why would James leave one aging star for another? Would a union of Bryant and the prospective free agent Carmelo Anthony be more conducive to title contention, or a high-profile game of H-O-R-S-E?

As nobody yet even knows how Bryant’s foot will hold up — it’s apparent that the Lakers were moving to protect their identity and viability as a Staples Center draw. It’s a calculated risk, based more on projected need than out of loyalty to Bryant.

Yes, he’s been the Lakers’ Derek Jeter — for as many years and as many titles — but also requiring much higher maintenance. Bryant feuded with Shaquille O’Neal, derided management in the post-O’Neal years, threatened to leave after the team stood by Bryant following accusations of rape. On the court, even into Bryant’s 30s, sharing the ball has been a concept he has flirted with more than mastered.

Planning his return, Bryant is now speculating he might have to be longer on guile than on jet propulsion. More, he said, like Paul Pierce (hopefully for him not this season’s Pierce, who shot 4 for 17 and whose painful late turnover ruined a furious Nets rally and whose misfire on an open 3-pointer killed their last hope).

“He’ll know that when he comes back and what athletically he can do,” Lakers coach Mike D’Antoni said. “I wouldn’t put anything past him.”

As a product of our star-worship culture, it would be surprising if Bryant isn’t putting anything past himself, believing he will be worth every penny of next season’s $24 million payout. Jerry Buss once said that Bryant was worth at least $60 million a year to his revenue streams. The essential counterpoint was that Bryant’s worth was always predicated on the Lakers being really good. Nobody ever paid to watch him shoot alone in a gym.

Even when there was no collectively bargained salary ceiling for superstars, there had to be limits on the earnings of those most leveraged — a societal acceptance by them that sacrifice is necessary for the greater good. Far from socialism, that’s common sense, enforced by government regulation or an NBA front office.

Technically, Bryant agreed to a pay cut from this season’s $30.4 million. But is that enough for the Lakers to build a title contender around one of the NBA’s greats, who may or may not still be that great?

That will be up to the quality and cunning of the people in charge. Even Jordan, the owner of a perennially bad Charlotte team, must by now recognize the importance of an astute organization.