DTP wrote:This roster is so incredibly bad....how does Pelinka not get more criticism? Dude has been awful since that championship....absolutely awful.
This really isn't on Pelinka. I see this as an ownership issue + Lebron issue.
Both ownership and Lebron believe in a studs + duds model. They want 3 superstars on long-term max deals and have the rest of the roster filled out ring chasers on veterans minimums. Ownership likes it because superstars sell tickets. And especially in LA which is a star driven city. Lebron has long since made clear he's skeptical of the value of non-superstars.
We can see their focus on names when the Westbrook move turned out to be a disaster. Sides started leaking they were interested in Derozan, a famous player who was having a good year, rather than the smaller moves that could have fixed the roster.
We can see their belief and focus on the 3 superstar model with how quickly they broke up their title team in pursuit of other stars.
It is a lot easier to build a title contender in LA than other cities. With NYC the only possible exception. But the advantage doesn't guarantee titles and you still need shrewd management.
The problem with this model is several:
1. True superstars are actually hard to get even with the LA advantage.
2. Fit is actually an issue with superstars and there is a significant decline in their value for most superstars once you hit 3.
3. The treat everyone else like disposable trash makes it very hard to get other players to commit to your organization. Since they know they are always 1 year away from being replaced it is hard to get players who will fully buy-in.
4. The studs and duds model is highly vulnerable to injury.
5. Name appeal =/= actual playing value. Artest was always a bigger name than Ariza but the Lakers with Ariza were a better club than the Lakers with Artest.
As long as the Lakers focus on this model they'll have a harder time building a title team despite the massive advantage of LA.
