Shortcuts taken by FO have placed coaches/players in tough spot

[dockingsched]

So i know a lot of criticism has been aimed towards Scott for his rotations among other things, towards Kobe for his play, and towards Russell for his struggles, but it seems like the FO has escaped harsh criticism so far this season.

IMO, the actions that the FO took this summer is the cause of all this friction and confusion. This summer the FO decided that it would try to take a shortcut leading into next summer's FA crop. Recognizing that FA's weren't seriously considering the lakers because of how far away they were from actually winning, the FO decided that they would acquire veteran players like Williams, Hibbert, and Bass in an attempt to raise the team's performance to a respectable level.

The fatal flaw in this plan is that none of these veterans are going to be part of a future core, so these vets and whatever empty wins they are able to get would be largely irrelevant to potential star FAs. What potential star FAs want is a core already in place and is already ready to win. The FO seems to have wanted to trick FA's by buying some wins this season with veteran players while masking that the youngsters were still several years away. The sacrifice for taking this approach would be a slower development of the youngsters due to lost PT.

With this edict to not only develop the youth but also play the vets to get enough wins to draw in FA's, the coaching staff and players were played in a position of having to satisfy two competing directions.

Right now with players like Williams and Kobe taking Russell's development PT and with the team still losing games, the team is in unsustainable situation where they are accomplishing nothing. Eventually if the losing persists, they are going to have to abandon the plan to get enough wins to look attractive and just develop the youth or else it'll be a completely lost season. Or they'll have to package the youth and get a win now player. They'll have to pick just one direction though and this decision will have to come from the front office though, not BScott.

[Marionettetc]

I don't think what's going on is anywhere near as devious as you make it out to be.

Few points :

1) I think everyone knows exactly where the rookies are, there's no reason to hide it.
2) There is a minimum salary cap to fill, and while your vision of strip mining may work in a vacuum I don't think it works in real life IE: see the 76ers

Brandon Bass $3,000,000
Roy Hibbert $15,592,217
Lou Williams $7,000,000
Nick Young $5,219,169

These are the players with no upside, as in they are known quantities. You're basically saying since they aren't part of the long term plans (I'd argue they are) they have no actual value to the team since they are the equivalent of meaningless wins.

To be absolutely fair, everyone above - including Roy considering we had 0 centers on the roster prior to this summer are all at the very least reasonable value for their contracts. The only really unreasonable contract on the Roster is Kobe, and we all know his situation and what he represents to the Lakers financials beyond his contract. Metta, Marcelo and Bass were brought in because we have a bunch of rooks and the Lakers front office wanted professional/veteran players to set the tone for these kids and for practicing development.

So while I agree with the general idea of your post Dock, I disagree with some of the minutiae.

TL;DR - I think real world factors play much more into final roster composition than you are making it out to.

[Slava]

The Lakers' scatter and gather approach towards free agency never makes sense, you can't keep taking on expiring contracts and recycle from season to season with no dividend to carry forward. I'd have preferred us to retain a guy like Ed Davis. He was offered 3 years and $18 mil, instead you are paying the same money to Lou Williams to take minutes away from Clarkson and now we don't have a legit backup center.

The moment they drafted Russell they had to know they needed a good rolling big to get the most out of him, instead you have lumbering Roy. I actually like Roy in a vacuum but this roster is built to play faster.

Its a dire situation to say the least, you either play the rookies and lose or play the veterans and win. If you play the veterans and lose that doesn't reflect well on the coaching and management.

[Mirjalovic]

Bass and Lou signing is a real head scratching move.

we need a SF if we want to compete.

[DEEP3CL]

I think FA's are smart enough to know what they're looking at in terms of a core, and the core is Russell, Julius and the rest of the younger players. Of course guys like Hibbert or Lou might not be long term in LA but the problem with the Laker FA plan has been targeting players that has zero chance of changing teams.

Fans here need to get it out of their minds that KD, Westbrook or who ever is a super star is coming here, they're not. They have to target a younger tier of FA's like DeRozan for example. Once they can accept the fact that the tier 1 guys aren't coming here then free agency will be a lot better to build from once they realize this.

But I agree with the tactic the FO took, the deals didn't hand cuff them but I'll admit it also shows no clear commitment to building a solid base of vets outside of the youth movement also. FA's will still want to come to a team that possess some vets. No FA is gong to come to any team for that matter just because it has a good youthful core. Secondly for any top tier FA to even consider coming here, that youthful core that everyone just thinks will land you a big time FA will have to show some type of playoff performance first and foremost.

I've never in my 4 decades of watching ball just seen a FA switch teams because the core was young, they have to make the playoffs and that was the end game behind getting vets they thought could expedite the process.

[moonpie]

I thought the moves the FO made were actually in support of luring a FA in the coming years. The hope is to build a more stable roster with veterans that aren't completely over the hill on non 1 year deals. That way guys can get a sense of what we're trying to do as a team and where they would fit in.

Unfortunately, the pieces are clunky, our kids are still really green, the coach is subpar, and Kobe is on his farewell tour. In fairness, it's still early...

[ArC_man]

1) I disagree that none of the vets brought in are part of a future core but I guess it depends on how you define a core player. Williams is on a 3 year contract and we have him locked up through his prime. I also believe Hibbert will re-sign this with us summer (given that there are no other good C FAs), Jim Buss has said he envisions Hibbert as a core piece in the future.

2) I disagree that extended playing time is the only way a player properly develops. Would Kobe have developed the way that he did if he came into the league and just started playing 35 mpg? There are many benefits to not playing as many minutes and the primary one I'm concerned with is the reduced physical load. This is a huge concern of mine with the injuries that over half of the top lottery picks from last year suffered (excluding Andrew Wiggins who is a physical specimen). I actually believe that the current method of developing Russell is the correct way and playing him 30+ mpg is the "shortcut".

[gts1]

For the most part I have no problems with this summers off season moves... basically the players they signed all have the potential to be solid role players.... not every signing is going to be a home run, for the Lakers or anybody for that matter but we certainly can't make any judgements this early in the season.. that's just goofy

as for looking towards next summer as this season progresses the Lakers are perfectly capable of mixing youth and experience at the same time.. it's not an either we do this OR we do that situation and by next summer the teams needs will be more defined... they've maneuvered themselves into a position where they can take a run at free agents, they do have a solid crop of youngsters and the vets for the most part are a good group of guys that a lot of teams would love to have filling out their bench.. they are actually in a pretty damn good place for a team that's untaken a ground up rebuild

as for the kids getting lots of playing time... it's an 82 game season they'll be getting more than enough as is, by the ASG the travel the practice the games will be taking it's toll... don't need to be running them into the rookie wall at 120 mph

[DEEP3CL]

2) I disagree that extended playing time is the only way a player properly develops. Would Kobe have developed the way that he did if he came into the league and just started playing 35 mpg?

Man I'm so glad you've said this, I'm getting so damn tired of hearing the word "development"....when guys say this they clearly haven't been involved in any form of organized ball. A rookie doesn't have to play 35 minutes just to say he's learning. I could go on and on with all star players that didn't play anywhere near 30 minutes a game and became all stars.

A players development comes with what he does off the court to prepare for the game, then utilize what he's learned in the games. It's more than just playing 35 minutes just to satisfy a fan base....can't believe guys are that dumb about it.

[moonpie]

I'd like to see our young 3 all at 30 MPG or so by the end of the year. I don't think it's the end of the world for them to get an extra 5 minutes of playing time. Kevin Durant came in as a 180-lb soaking wet rookie and averaged 34 minutes a game for OKC. I think hes turned out all right. And no, I'm not comparing Durant as a prospect to any of our trio as prospects, I'm saying that he was underdeveloped physically (could argue he still is), was the focus of the defense every night on a young Sonics squad, but has still carved out a nice career for himself.

[ArC_man]

I'd like to see our young 3 all at 30 MPG or so by the end of the year. I don't think it's the end of the world for them to get an extra 5 minutes of playing time. Kevin Durant came in as a 180-lb soaking wet rookie and averaged 34 minutes a game for OKC. I think hes turned out all right. And no, I'm not comparing Durant as a prospect to any of our trio as prospects, I'm saying that he was underdeveloped physically (could argue he still is), was the focus of the defense every night on a young Sonics squad, but has still carved out a nice career for himself.

I imagine this season will play out very similarly to last season. In mid/late January when Russell's physically more developed we'll see a more concerted effort to get Russell more minutes and finish off games. I remember watching a Backstage Lakers episode with Mark Madsen and he compared developing a player to training a pit bull. He argued that instead of siccing the dog loose on everything, sometimes it's better to rein it in.

[bah humbug]

just stop signing chuckers and low bball iq guys please. why sign lou when we have swaggy and kobe? all 3 guys have the same function at this point and most teams prefer to have 0 of them. hibbert i understand was a desperation move because nobody else would sign with us, but i really hate the lou signing even though he's probably better than both kobe and nick. also takes the ball out of dangelo's hands, and we need the ball in his hands for him to learn. none of this coming off a screen shooting 3s-we didn't draft him to be rip hamilton

[LakersLegacy]

I really like this team on paper. For me I feel that the gm did a solid job (although I would have chosen okafor and rondo over Russell and hibbert)

Part of the reason is I think is free agents would like to play w rondo + rookies randle and okafor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hazy_01]

I especially don't like the Lou Will signing, still a head scratcher to me. Were they that confident in trading swaggy during the off-season? Or did they get him to mentor Russell? Talented scorer but we already have multiple ball-dominant players.

[dockingsched]

I don't think what's going on is anywhere near as devious as you make it out to be.

Few points :

1) I think everyone knows exactly where the rookies are, there's no reason to hide it.
2) There is a minimum salary cap to fill, and while your vision of strip mining may work in a vacuum I don't think it works in real life IE: see the 76ers

Brandon Bass $3,000,000
Roy Hibbert $15,592,217
Lou Williams $7,000,000
Nick Young $5,219,169

These are the players with no upside, as in they are known quantities. You're basically saying since they aren't part of the long term plans (I'd argue they are) they have no actual value to the team since they are the equivalent of meaningless wins.

To be absolutely fair, everyone above - including Roy considering we had 0 centers on the roster prior to this summer are all at the very least reasonable value for their contracts. The only really unreasonable contract on the Roster is Kobe, and we all know his situation and what he represents to the Lakers financials beyond his contract. Metta, Marcelo and Bass were brought in because we have a bunch of rooks and the Lakers front office wanted professional/veteran players to set the tone for these kids and for practicing development.

So while I agree with the general idea of your post Dock, I disagree with some of the minutiae.

TL;DR - I think real world factors play much more into final roster composition than you are making it out to.

The minimum salary point really doesn't have much traction imo, there no punishment for being under the minimum team salary. All that happens is you disperse the difference among the players on your team. The issue right now with the vets isn't just their contracts or simply their playing time, its that with Lou Williams, the lakers have 3 ball dominant high usage perimeter players that when they play, don't help Russell in any way. Its one thing if these guys were off the ball and complimentary to Russell or even Clarkson, but these guys are a hindrance.

So to answer many of the other posts here, no, PT isn't the only way to develop a player, but when they do play, its important to have players that compliment them and help them be successful in their role. Instead we have vets that take away from players like Russell and Clarkson. V

[ALL HAIL]

It seems like the FO has escaped harsh criticism so far this season.

Agreed.

This summer the FO decided that it would try to take a shortcut leading into next summer's FA crop. The FO decided that they would acquire veteran players like Williams, Hibbert, and Bass in an attempt to raise the team's performance to a respectable level.

First off, what's wrong with getting better? What's wrong with being respectable? Are you arguing that they were trying to be "fake-respectable" in a febil attempt to "fool" FAs into signing here?

And you're calling it a shortcut because what? They should've just avoided signing anyone with real NBA experience, and let a bunch of puppies play 38 minutes a game?

Tell me you're not the type of dude who believes in the "uselessness of veterans" (even in a rebuild).

And please don't lump Williams, Bass, and Hibbert into one entity. The truth is, they needed a shot blocker who could play 25 minutes a game. Roy Hibbert was not a bad move at all. They needed a third big man who could play PF and some center. Brandon Bass was a "safe", yet unimaginitive, signing, but at the time, there were damn near no options left (Who'd you have in mind?).

The only real headscratcher was Lou Williams. Herein lies the real problem, but signing Lou Williams was neither a shortcut nor a move toward fake-respectability. It was just stupid as hell.

The sacrifice for taking this approach [of playing Hibbert, Willlams, and Bass] would be a slower development of the youngsters due to lost PT.

No dude. Just no. Playing some young veterans with a bunch of rookies is not wrong. It's actually quite smart and practical, both as a way to win more and in developing youngsters. Again, the only "problem vet" signed was Lou Will. He shouldn't be on this team, but signing other vets was very wise.

With this edict to not only develop the youth but also play the vets to get enough wins to draw in FA's, the coaching staff and players were played in a position of having to satisfy two competing directions.

You can do both dude. Playing a handful of vets 15-25 minutes a game while you let the rooks get 20-30 minutes is completely reasonable.

And if you think that the Lakers thought the signings of Williams, Hibbert, and Bass was some kind of "magic pill" to woe free agents, you've lost more respect of the FO's ability to manage and construct teams than me my friend.

[madmaxmedia]

I think fielding a somewhat competitive roster in Kobe's last year was a factor too.

But as others say, acquiring some vets does not necessarily have to impact player development. The FO and coaching staff need to have a plan of course.

It's so early in the season too, I imagine by late season DAR will be getting more than enough minutes. If this isn't the case, then of course that's a problem.

I also agree signing Lou Williams was the most unnecessary move, given we already have Kobe, Clarkson, Russell. But I think everyone is well aware who is more important to the franchise.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Kilroy]

I think this argument is a little circular... The Lakers should have signed better FA's so they could attract better FAs? Or they shouldn't have signed FA's to long contracts so they could attract better FAs?

We had to sign some free agents... Essentially nobody wanted to sign here. We didn't have the option this season to sign a bunch of disposable players to 1yr deals... I mean we could have, but it would have been even uglier than it is now.
I think the FO would have preferred shorter deals, but we were running the risk of signing nobody and the fans were calling for everyone's heads. I think they had to offer longer term contracts just to sign the few FAs that were interested in signing with a lottery team

Hibbert was the biggest risk... But he was also the third choice... The first two choices didn't come before the other vets were here, so I don't see how they could be to blame for essentially not being better players. We chose Russell instead of Okafor... We needed a C and Hibbert is pretty young still. He's clearly not hampering the development of anyone else.

Lou was 6moy... And at the time we signed him, one of the best remaining free agents IMO. The worst part about the signing to me was that he was essentially Swaggy-lite... That said, I think he's been decent for us. I don't think he's taking PT from the young guys... Maybe from Swaggy... Which is a net gain.

Bass, everybody thought was a great signing... Aside from the fact that everyone though he was going to steal all Randle's PT... The fact that he stinks on ice is troubling, but not sure the FO is to blame for that one. So there's been no problem there as far as stealing dev time... Unless you think MWP needs more PT... You may have an argument, but it's off topic.

Again, this really comes down to Kobe and Russell (maybe the real point of this thread?)... Clarkson is fine, Randle is essentially flourishing... The problem is Russell can't really get going and Kobe is playing another game than the other 4 players on the court...

So to me the FO took no shortcuts... In fact if anything, they took the scenic route... If they wanted to take a shortcut, they would have let Kobe walk and they would have drafted Okafor. And since letting Kobe walk wasn't even a real choice, we're left with drafting Okafor...
But this thread is about hampering Russell essentially, so that discussion's moot too.

[Jody Smokz]

Lou Williams was a bad signing b/c they didn't move Nick Young. Now you are stuck with both of them. You have too many wings competing for minutes. Funny thing is Young is playing better than Lou and Anthony Brown at the age of 23 shouldn't be parked on the bench, especially considering he's a 3&D role player type.

[Marionettetc]

Lou was 6moy... And at the time we signed him, one of the best remaining free agents IMO. The worst part about the signing to me was that he was essentially Swaggy-lite... That said, I think he's been decent for us. I don't think he's taking PT from the young guys... Maybe from Swaggy... Which is a net gain.

In addition to that, Lou has looked pretty good as a backup point when he's had to. I like him on the ball better than clarkson or Marcello.