Los Angeles Lakers early offseason in review (HW/bondom34/dbrandon/Slava)

[Texas Chuck]

A good draft and getting rid of Scott should be worth at least a "C".

...but it doesn't count since that's what they were expected to do.

It counts. If they drafted Skal at 2 and gave Scott an extension they would automatically get an F before we even get to Mozgov being essentially the first signing in free agency.

But how much should it count? How many times on this forum was "2-player draft" written? On the internet? One trillion times? So picking Ingram when every other team would have means very little. Or should. You should have higher standards for your own team other than well we weren't completely incompetent. And yes that is possible--Detroit once picked Darko with Melo, Wade, and Bosh all sitting right there. But personally I'd have higher standards for my team.

And same with Scott. It was clear there was no point to paying him to go away until Kobe was also gone so he had to ride it out as a lame duck--and he's no fool--he knew that's what he was. So him being gone really means almost nothing. Now Walton was a hot coaching prospect so landing him certainly is a positive.

But then free agency wasn't good by any objective measures so getting all upset that your team's off-season wasn't highly thought of seems odd. The Mavs have pretty much blown every off-season since the title. I can be a huge fan while acknowledging that, you know?

[Mr. E]

The Lakers are a work in progress. The absolute dumbest thing that they could have done this off-season would have been to trade any of the young players they've been acquiring for some "Big Name" player.

Now is not the time for the Lakers to be impatient. They've made it through the worst time of a rebuilding process and now they are set pretty well to grow a young team and add quality along the way.

[Karmaloop]

But then free agency wasn't good by any objective measures so getting all upset that your team's off-season wasn't highly thought of seems odd. The Mavs have pretty much blown every off-season since the title. I can be a huge fan while acknowledging that, you know?

I'm not asking you (or anyone else) to be really stoked about the off-season. I've given them a B-/C+ grade based on their entire offseason. The problem I'm seeing is that you're willing to dock their offseason if they would have done something that wasn't expected, but you'll completely ignore what they did when they did what was expected. Does the fact that they were expected to draft Brandon Ingram diminish the potential impact that he could have with the franchise? No. They were expected to fire Byron Scott, but does that diminish the impact that replacing Bryon Scott with Luke Walton? No. So why would you ignore something? You're not suppose to be judging based on how much they surpassed your expectations. You're grading based on how well they accomplished the offseason goals, and improved their team. The Lakers are a much improved team.

As for the whole Deng/Mozgov discussion, I find it amusing how the Kings are being applauded for bring in veterans to "change the culture", but the Lakers doing it it's a drastic overpay. Sure, I would have loved to get Mozgov on a 2 year deal with a TO on a 3rd year at $8M per year, but that wasn't happening. That's not where the market rate was at. I would have loved to get Luol Deng at 2 years, $12M. That wasn't happening. Sometimes you have to overpay to get the guys you want. That happened. It's not pretty, but it's not the end of the world like some are making it out to be. Both should be moveable unless their bodies fall apart, which at this point isn't likely given the history.

[HartfordWhalers]

Does the fact that they were expected to draft Brandon Ingram diminish the potential impact that he could have with the franchise?

And if you are grading a 'franchise impact' that makes sense to care about. If on the other hand you are grading a team/gm on what they did with what their situation was, it makes no sense to give credit for it.

Both types of grades make sense depending upon what you want to see graded. But demanding the second be identical to the first and being unwilling to see the different criteria is silly.

[Texas Chuck]

They were expected to fire Byron Scott, but does that diminish the impact that replacing Bryon Scott with Luke Walton? No. So why would you ignore something?

And same with Scott. It was clear there was no point to paying him to go away until Kobe was also gone so he had to ride it out as a lame duck--and he's no fool--he knew that's what he was. So him being gone really means almost nothing. Now Walton was a hot coaching prospect so landing him certainly is a positive.

I'm really confused. You agree with me that they were expected to fire Scott which means you should agree with all of us who state that move alone isn't really worth a ton of credit. But then you accuse me of ignoring something I very clearly did not ignore?--I'll even bold it for you.


And I agree with HW. Should the Cavs have gotten tons of credit for drafting Lebron? Or the Spurs Duncan? Or the Magic Shaq? Now this wasn't quite that level of no-brainer, but I never heard for even a second that anyone other than whomever was left of Simmons/Ingram was ever going to be the Lakers pick. It was the obvious choice. They should get "some" credit for that as opposed to trying to get cute and take a lessor prospect, but again if you do something anyone would do? How much praise is that worth? Or should it be worth?

[Karmaloop]

And if you are grading a 'franchise impact' that makes sense to care about. If on the other hand you are grading a team/gm on what they did with what their situation was, it makes no sense to give credit for it.

Both types of grades make sense depending upon what you want to see graded. But demanding the second be identical to the first and being unwilling to see the different criteria is silly.

And that goes back to my question, are you evaluating them based on how much they exceeded your expectations or based on how well they accomplished what they did? I was under the impression that this series was based on the latter, not the former.

[Karmaloop]

I'm really confused. You agree with me that they were expected to fire Scott which means you should agree with all of us who state that move alone isn't really worth a ton of credit. But then you accuse me of ignoring something I very clearly did not ignore?--I'll even bold it for you.


And I agree with HW. Should the Cavs have gotten tons of credit for drafting Lebron? Or the Spurs Duncan? Or the Magic Shaq? Now this wasn't quite that level of no-brainer, but I never heard for even a second that anyone other than whomever was left of Simmons/Ingram was ever going to be the Lakers pick. It was the obvious choice. They should get "some" credit for that as opposed to trying to get cute and take a lessor prospect, but again if you do something anyone would do? How much praise is that worth? Or should it be worth?

No, I thought hiring Luke Walton was the right coach. A bit of a bold move (given how green Luke is), but the right move based on the direction the franchise was heading. The Lakers can afford to take some lumps as the roster, and the coaching staff goes through it's natural growing pains. I mean, I'm not naive enough to think that the Lakers are going to be a playoff team. I expect them to be more competitive, but they're not even close to being a playoff team unless Russell and Ingram both blow up. I think you misunderstood my "no" comment. I was saying that the change is a HUGE factor in the positive future for the Lakers.

I'm not saying that the Lakers need to be given "credit" for taking the obvious guys, I'm saying it shouldn't be ignored. If you're evaluating solely on the FA decisions, than a "D" or "F" grade is probably a fair grade. But they nailed the coaching decision AND the draft. It doesn't make a difference who they were expected to draft. They drafted BPA at 2, and at 32. Let's not take that out of the equation simply because "it was expected".

[HartfordWhalers]

And if you are grading a 'franchise impact' that makes sense to care about. If on the other hand you are grading a team/gm on what they did with what their situation was, it makes no sense to give credit for it.

Both types of grades make sense depending upon what you want to see graded. But demanding the second be identical to the first and being unwilling to see the different criteria is silly.

And that goes back to my question, are you evaluating them based on how much they exceeded your expectations or based on how well they accomplished what they did? I was under the impression that this series was based on the latter, not the former.

Well, then you really skimmed the OP.

I grade based upon:
1) Did the team do better or worse than they should have given the circumstances?

Spoiler:

Picking a top 8 prospect at pick #3 still makes you better in the short and long run, but it sure isn't doing the best you could. When half of your team is up for big raises and free agents like Charlotte, you will not be able to bring back everyone and shouldn't be graded like that was a realistic expectation.
2) Did the team focus its energy in the right direction?
Swimming faster than expected in the wrong direction might be better than expected at speed, but not actually good. If the Nets got Mozgov on a cheaper than expected great contract, I would still be questioning why they targeted an aging vet at the position of their most talented player. You need to have a logical plan for the big picture.
3) Is there something incomplete that needed to be addressed but wasn't? Are the individual steps compatible?
This is really part of 2 above, but it is important enough to pull it out as a third point of grading.

Some examples:
Miami got worse. But they picked the right direction -- keep Whiteside, Johnson, and as much future cap flexibility as possible. And they fully executed that direction. I gave them top marks even if their short term prospects look dimmer.

Orlando decided to push all in on winning now, and gave up slightly more than expected in the Ibaka-Oladipo trade (and the Meeks trade, and the Jeff Green signing). Value wise maybe it was a C to me, but directionally fitting in Ibaka with Vucevik looks like an A of a plan. They knew they were drifting into the 10-16 drafting range and needed to fix their core with the perfect support players, while hoping for a breakout from Gordon or someone else? However, the win now push failed to address the big pg issue, and I'm not sold on Biyombo and Ibaka fitting together either. I loved the direction of their big moves, but the fit and attention to the whole picture pulled the grade back down for me to a C+.

And my past responses directly to you, that you quoted:

On the other hand, I firmly believe in grading team's off what they do with their situation, not the inherent situation they are in.

And again:

If the Lakers did something worse than expected at #2, I definitely would have penalized it.
If the Lakers did something better than expected at #2, I definitely would have rewarded it.

They did exactly what was expected, and neither get rewarded nor punished.

I don't actually now how more clear I could have been.

The Lakers future is obviously brighter than it looked 6 months ago. However, it is a lot less bright than it should have been once that draft order got set.

[HotelVitale]

Sure, I would have loved to get Mozgov on a 2 year deal with a TO on a 3rd year at $8M per year, but that wasn't happening. That's not where the market rate was at. I would have loved to get Luol Deng at 2 years, $12M. That wasn't happening. Sometimes you have to overpay to get the guys you want.

Well, the obvious criticism of those moves was that the Lakers played the market really poorly. In a vacuum, getting Mozgov is okay, but that move is being judged given the other possible options for the particular Lakers team. Most of us doubt that anyone else was knocking down Mozgov's door with anything close to that offer especially, but let's assume for the sake of argument someone was offering say $10m less. The argument for reaching to pay him that extra $10m still makes little sense. Mozgov wasn't a particularly hot commodity, so he won't be eminently tradeable and wasn't a can't-pass-up guy; he won't be pushing them forward into contention or anything else meaningful, so there was no reason for this Lakers team to overpay for him precisely (he also doesn't fit their personnel particularly well or anything); there were other 5s available who were either a lot younger or costs a lot less money (or years), so the team lost the opportunity to look for upside guys or else spend their money on another guy.

Overall, I don't know if that deal will really alter the franchise much, and I can see how Lakers' fans are defensive and annoyed about how much attention it's getting. But I also can't see a viable argument for the deal being anything less than a failure.

Deng's more complicated but I think the conclusion's the same. He's a nice player and some other team would've offered him a fair amount of money. (Though I'd caution against thinking last year's Deng was the real one--he had two weaker years from 2013-15.) But the Lakers decided to offer him the MOST money/years without any clear upside for that move. If they just need 'vet leadership,' they could've found it a lot cheaper, and I don't see why winning a few extra games this year and next is worth tying up $136m in 30+ year olds.

It seems like these moves are saying 'we'll be really bad but not embarrassingly bad and we'll look like we tried.' I get that the team is about developing the younger players and these guys can help that culture a little, but Mozgov and Deng aren't Duncan, Ginobli, and Popovich as presences and 'culture' isn't worth much without adding to your young talent. Those two represent a mammoth amount of money that could've been spent doing some other things to improve the team 2-3 years down the line.

[HotelVitale]

Now is not the time for the Lakers to be impatient. They've made it through the worst time of a rebuilding process and now they are set pretty well to grow a young team and add quality along the way.

This rest on a lot of shaky assumptions, and it seems like you're saying 'you've been bad a few years and get a couple top picks, so now you'll be fine whatever happens.' Not trying to sound like a downer, but they could very easily be in for like 4 more years of bad to mediocre play. I like Russell but he's far from a surefire star, same for Ingram; they're great prospects but even if they develop decently they're not the sort of generational talents that can anchor a great team 2-3 years into the league. This is still a rebuilding team that needs more young talent in addition to some internal growth.

That's the only reason I agree with the criticisms of the FA signings.I don't really are about overpaying per se, and I get that players get paid what they get paid. But missing out on next year's pick because they won 28 games instead of 23 sets their rebuild back significantly, and neither of these deals will ever be great contracts or big surprises or anything else that a young, growing team should be trying to get in FAs.

[LakersLegacy]

The Lakers deserve a C+ just for keeping the pick and taking Ingram.

He is by far the best offseason addition.

[bondom34]

The Lakers deserve a C+ just for keeping the pick and taking Ingram.

He is by far the best offseason addition.

I mean, I did, but to do that they just had to suck last year and not be totally incompetent in the draft.

[warren weel im]

To be honest, I would've loved it if the "expert critics" graded the Lakers triple Fs. Because the season is not really about getting an A or getting to 50 wins, its about developing. The only question then is: "Did the Lakers improve on the development aspect?" and the clear cut answer is yes, unquestionably. So whether its BlindProphet's 19 wins or Pelton's 23 wins or someone else's 35 wins, this is a year where the L on the W/L column means more if the kids grow up to be winners. Unlike last season where everything else not named Kobe meant very little.

Point for point, the very first jackpot offseason move was firing Scott (100 points) and hiring Walton (200 points). Then we managed to keep the 2nd pick (100 points)... managed not to trade #2 pick or Russell (which are the 2 cornerstones) (100 points) ... and we actually made it to picking Ingram, which is a victory in itself because the Lakers would've selected him at #1 anyway (100 points).

Great Job so far. When you consider now the potential that Zubac has, its another plus point for "just" a 2nd rounder. (100 points)

During Free Agency, the Lakers shot for the stars but quit ahead. No meeting for Durant or Whiteside, targets 1 and 1A. Therefore, stick to the plan. Sign a defensive, PNR and high-character CE which is a veteran. Check. In a few days, try to find yourself a veteran leader who's played in plenty of pressure situations, a good community leader and a positive locker room guy throughout his career. Check. The problem are the lengths of their contracts. This is the part where we all revise history and assume that either you would have NOT signed anyone rather than have Mozgov for year 1 and 2 productive and be bad for years 3 and 4, costing you some free agents... same with Deng.

So question is, would you have graded the Lakers if they didn't sign anyone at all other than Clarkson, Huertas, Black and Yi?

We all agree that the problem with Deng and Mozgov are years 3 and 4, not 1 and 2. They will be valuable pieces for years 1-2 and highly tradeable contracts by years 3-4. If the Lakers do end up with franchise-level talent in Ingram and Russell, the addition of Mozgov and Deng for years 1-2 would by far, outweigh the potential signings we could have on years 3-4 if Ingram and Russell remain above-average players.

So call us back on year 3/4, because if Russell and Ingram are stars then, I would've paid Deng and Mozgov 72M and 64M for creating my 2 franchise players.

In the meantime, feel free to grade us worse than F. This war isn't won on paper.

[warren weel im]

And by the way, the use of "points" was like in "Whose Line is it, Anyway?" Look it up, millennials.

[Andre Roberstan]

I think the main disconnect here is that a lot of Lakers fans seem to think Deng and Mozzy's contracts will be highly tradeable in years 3 and 4, which I vehemently disagree with.

[Slava]

I think the main disconnect here is that a lot of Lakers fans seem to think Deng and Mozzy's contracts will be highly tradeable in years 3 and 4, which I vehemently disagree with.

This isn't true. No one thinks they can trade Mozgov, not at that contract. If they trade Deng it will be in the first couple years.

[Andre Roberstan]

I think the main disconnect here is that a lot of Lakers fans seem to think Deng and Mozzy's contracts will be highly tradeable in years 3 and 4, which I vehemently disagree with.

This isn't true. No one thinks they can trade Mozgov, not at that contract. If they trade Deng it will be in the first couple years.

Maybe not a lot, but Warren literally said that in the post above:

We all agree that the problem with Deng and Mozgov are years 3 and 4, not 1 and 2. They will be valuable pieces for years 1-2 and highly tradeable contracts by years 3-4.

[Slava]

I think the main disconnect here is that a lot of Lakers fans seem to think Deng and Mozzy's contracts will be highly tradeable in years 3 and 4, which I vehemently disagree with.

This isn't true. No one thinks they can trade Mozgov, not at that contract. If they trade Deng it will be in the first couple years.

Maybe not a lot, but Warren literally said that in the post above:

We all agree that the problem with Deng and Mozgov are years 3 and 4, not 1 and 2. They will be valuable pieces for years 1-2 and highly tradeable contracts by years 3-4.

That counts as one.

[warren weel im]

Just try to imagine if the cap figure goes up from 94 to 102 next season. Then out of the 102 estimate, you gain 5M more that becomes 107. So the season after that, its going to be atleast 114 and then by the season after, going to be 120.

You telling me, trading 16M on a 120M cap as an expiring contract (for teams that want to reset) that 16M is a big deal?

Nah.

[Slava]

Just try to imagine if the cap figure goes up from 94 to 102 next season. Then out of the 102 estimate, you gain 5M more that becomes 107. So the season after that, its going to be atleast 114 and then by the season after, going to be 120.

You telling me, trading 16M on a 120M cap as an expiring contract (for teams that want to reset) that 16M is a big deal?

Nah.

That's not how it works and also there's a very good chance the players or the owners or both will opt out of the current CBA and negotiate a new one in 2017.