Mitch Kupchak
It was with considerable reluctance that I put Mitch in the “elite” GM tier, and I should emphasise that he is by far the weakest GM in this category. I find Mitch to be quite overrated in a lot of respects, and his last offseason is pretty much the only thing putting him in here. This is ironic, because it’s also the thing which could potentially knock him down a whole category this offseason, if Dwight leaves, and the Lakers implode. For now though, I’ll judge Mitch on the status quo.
Early yearsIt’s fair to say Mitch didn’t do very much when he first got to the Lakers. He inherited the 2000 title team, and didn’t do a whole lot to improve it to be honest. He moved Rice for 1 year of a still serviceable Ho Grant, which was a good move in the circumstances (Rice having killed his value), though the pick he gave up to do it was a little much (and turned into Tinsley- worse still Tony Parker and Gilbert Arenas were the next 2 picks). Other than that Mitch basically did nothing whatever to improve the 3-peat Lakers. His first round picks were all failures too- Chris Jefferies into Kareem Rush was nothing notable, nor was Brian Cook. Walton is a pretty decent pick up in the 2nd round, but he’s a guy you want as your 12th man in ideal circumstances.
For a team able to spend so much more on scouts and player development he didn’t really do anything with those resources. In contrast teams like the Spurs were both superior in international scouting, and also ran their own D-League team to great effect later on. Both were innovations at the time. Mitch didn’t do anything to innovate. His attempt to sign guys like PJ Brown as free agents was a pretty big wake up call for him. PJ Brown was noted in the media to say afterwards that he wasn‘t very impressed with their pitch of him taking less money for the “privilege of being a Laker”. I mean the guy signed a contract for $8 mill a year that offseason (over 4 years), offering him the MLE (then less than $5 mill) was pretty insulting. He let Horry walk too, which looked smart with Karl Malone coming in (and after the 2003 playoffs, where Horry played badly), but the Spurs would get quite a lot out of Horry still, while Karl Malone had injuries that year, and was gone after 2004. It looked like a coup at the time, but in reality Payton and Karl were done, so while there was no harm in Mitch signing these guys (anybody would have done it at the time), it wasn’t a move that really looked ahead of the curve (the exact opposite given how badly it worked out). A lot of the credit for recruiting Karl and GP belonged to Shaq anyway, who had basically talked them into it. This created further problems, because Shaq claimed Mitch had promised to max him out if he brought in Karl Malone and GP, and Mitch obviously didn’t. When you mislead players (or make them feel they’ve been misled) you hurt your credibility a lot. It becomes much harder to recruit guys with a wink wink that you’ll take care of them in the long term (like the Heat did twice with Haslem) when you’ve got your stars accusing you of lying to them (something Kobe accused the Lakers of several years later when he demanded a trade).
While there were several occasions where players felt Mitch had lied to them, or insulted them, I give Mitch credit during this period for being good at handling player egos. It’s not easy GM’ing a team with Shaq and Kobe on it at the same time, and Mitch seems to have managed to stave off their inevitable split for a few years at least. He was smart enough not to trade Kobe, as Phil Jackson had advised him to do, but he certainly missed the boat in terms of trading Shaq while his value was highest. I guess he had no choice (he had to try and win the 2004 season, and then when the 2004 offseason came he had no time left), but it was still unfortunate. If he’d moved Shaq after 2003 maybe he could have gotten a significantly better package back. By waiting he inevitably gave Shaq leverage to control his destiny. Keeping Kobe wasn’t exactly an easy choice either. The guy had his own free agency coming up, he was very difficult to deal with, and he’d just cost them the 2004 title with his selfish shot jacking and poor team play. 1-2 years after he traded Shaq it looked like Mitch might have made a big mistake, as Kobe couldn’t get anywhere by himself, and Shaq was suddenly appreciated by fans who had never liked him at all. Kobe’s rape trial, and inability to get along with a GOAT coach didn’t help matters. But given how Shaq was getting old, he clearly made the right decision.
He also was understood what some GM’s and owners don’t- that this is just business. He rehired Phil for the 2006 season despite Phil having ripped Kobe and the organisation in his book, because it was good for business. Organisations need to avoid petty stuff that hurts you (like Gilbert’s dumb letter to Lebron, or Cuban’s constant public gaffes). Holding on to the past isn’t constructive, and it was both necessary and sensible to do things like retiring Shaq’s jersey the other day (in spite of some of the problems he caused). It took him a long time to get Kareem a statue, which was a bad look PR wise, but even that’s now been fixed.
Post title yearsWhile I credit Mitch for making the right decision to trade Shaq (or lose Kobe 2 years later) I can’t say I thought a whole lot of the package he got for him. It amounted to Lamar Odom, Caron Butler, and a pick that became a so-so back-up point guard(given how washed up Brian Grant was he was just a bad contract they took back in return). Shaq made it hard for them of course, he was threatening to miss the 2005 season if he got traded somewhere he didn’t like (and have toe surgery), but I find it hard to believe more couldn’t have been acquired. It was a pretty sub-optimal deal. Worse, he then sent Butler off for Kwame, which was sub-optimal value again.
During this post Shaq period, Mitch made some pretty mediocre decisions on the whole.
- Vujacic was a meh first rounder
- He traded the pick that would become Rajon Rondo just 2 years later for Chris Mihm (who was soon finished by injuries) and Atkins (who played 1 year in LA). Looks very bad in hindsight, and trading all your first rounders when you’re not sure how good you’ll be going forward isn’t very smart.
- Bynum and Turiaf were great finds at #10 and #37 respectively.
- Making Smush Parker your starting point guard once Atkins left wasn’t very smart though, and one can’t help but think he should have done better. He made the right call letting Fisher go for big money (and got him back in the end), but he should have done more to address this spot, rather than rely on Fisher buying out his contract in the future.
- Crittenton was a pretty poor pick with the #19 spot. Wilson Chandler, Tiago Splitter, Rudy Fernando, Afflalo, Landry, etc were all available from here.
- While he picked up Marc Gasol in the 2nd round of the 2007 draft, he obviously didn’t think much of him since at the time he was perceived as a throw in to the Pau Gasol deal. Indeed, Kobe remarked in the media at the time (in 2008):
“In hindsight, we probably didn’t have to give him up to get Pau,” Bryant said. “We should have kept Marc, too.”
http://lakernation.com/kobe-we-should-h ... arc-gasol/He said that elsewhere too, in words to the effect of “it seems like Memphis didn’t really want him to make the deal happen”. Memphis didn’t refute this notion with their statements at the time, which focused on how they had made the deal because Kwame was “the biggest expiring available”. The Pau Gasol trade as a whole was an obvious win for Mitch, but it was an idiotic move from Memphis, since:
a) Nobody really expected Marc Gasol to be good at the time (and nobody would have been surprised if he wasn’t)
b) The Grizz made the deal primarily for an expiring contract, not for non-valued assets like Marc Gasol (and an unproven Euro for a franchise player like Pau was at the time is always a dumb move), and
c) The Grizzlies turned around and gave Zach Randolph (a worse player than Pau) a bigger contract less than 2 years later. I meant, what the hell was the point of not paying Pau because you’re saving money, just to turn around and pay Zach? Really bad logic. To this day I have no idea why the Grizzlies made this trade, and since I can’t prove Mitch has photos of the Grizzlies owner with hookers I can’t give him much credit for it. Other teams didn’t even really get a chance to bid, the Grizzlies just called Mitch up and offered him Pau, when many teams would have given far more up (and maybe they wouldn’t have had an expiring contract as big, but who cares as long as the Grizz save a little money and get back more talent).
Of course since Marc is now a low level franchise player himself, a lot of people have produced revisionist history that this deal was in some way fair, but it really wasn’t at all. Still, this was the move that saved the Lakers, since Kobe had previously been demanding a trade, and the franchise was going nowhere without it. He also made some other good moves around this time:
- Got Ariza for cheap
- Signed solid role player Radmanovic (though got rid of him for Adam Morrison and Shannon Brown 2 years later. Eww)
- They sold their 2009 1st rounder for cash basically, which is a way of saying there is nobody you like at all in the draft from that point on. Given they passed on D.Blair, N.DeColo, Budinger, D.Green, M.Thornton, D.Cunningham and even Toney (the guy they traded), who would all become between useful and excellent role players, that clearly wasn’t very smart. I don’t like how much Mitch blindly trades 1st rounders for trivial upgrades. Sure, 2011 1st rounder Jujuan Johnson was a bust, but that pick could have netted Chandler Parsons, Jimmy Butler, Corey Joseph (who looks like he can become a solid back up PG), Norris Cole, or Lavoy Allen. In extreme cases it ends up costing them guys like Rondo.
- S.Blake, M.Barnes were both good free agent acquisitions, no matter how much Lakers fans have hated on them with unrealistic expectations.
- I don’t blame him for Metta; Ariza was asking for alot of money, and Artest helped them win the title in 2010.
Overall though you have to give Mitch some credit for the 2008-10 finals runs, and generally upgrading the talent on the roster. It wasn’t exactly flawless or close to optimal, and without the Pau trade being thrown into his lap he’d look pretty awful, but he ended up with good results and that’s a big part of what GM’s are judged on (along with the crucial context to those results- like having great assets to begin with, having natural market advantages, etc). Most GM’s lacked Mitch’s advantages though, they couldn’t spend nearly as much, had small markets and didn’t start off with 2 such valuable guys to build around (and trade in due course). Compare Mitch and Petrie from 95-04 only and Petrie eats him alive with his track record. Unfortunately, ownership problems or note, the last 9 years still happened for Petrie.
Post title yearsAs the Lakers team soon became supplanted by other stacked teams, Mitch had to find a way to move forward. I give him credit for almost being able to get Chris Paul, even though I have no idea how Demps could agree with such a deal. That would have been a a really good move. I also like his acquisition of guys like Jordan Hill and Earl Clark (as a throw in no less). He paid too much to rent Sessions, but Sessions wasn’t a bad option to try out. In a few years that pick he gave up could look bad though. I also like that he dealt with the Odom situation quickly and moved him for something useful in a trade exception. Jamison is a bit of a nothing free agent acquisition.
This brings us to the 3 big moves that he will be judged on going forward, and which (for the moment) have him at the bottom of the elite GM tier.
The Steve Nash TradeOn the face of it, this was a huge win. Nash almost carried some scrubs to the Western playoffs in 2012, and he had a good physical condition coming in. This is exactly the sort of thing you’ve been saving the trade exception for (and the new CBA means you won’t be using trade exceptions to sign and trade guys while over the cap anymore, so Mitch should enjoy it while he can). On the other hand, it’s reminiscent of the Gary Payton trade in some ways too, where both are so old you have to think they might finally break down. Nash of course got hurt immediately, hasn’t looked like he fits next to Kobe (much more worrying) and will cost you a lot with the crazy new luxury tax (but hey, it’s ownerships money). More important than the money though is what you gave up, which seemed trivial at the time, but which doesn’t anymore. If the Lakers miss the playoffs this year they give a lotto pick to the Suns. Ouch. If Dwight leaves in free agency, and the team slumps (short term) then 1st rounders are suddenly going to be a lot more important. The Lakers gave up what might end up being two nice 1st round picks, and two nice 2nd round picks. This trade could really haunt the Lakers in the future, even though for the moment it still looks ok. The question of how Nash fits next to Kobe with the ball out of his hands was asked at the time, and there still isn’t an answer. If this experiment goes badly Mitch should be punished for acquiring guys who didn’t fit together.
The Dwight tradeObviously you have to do a move like this 10 times out of 10, and it was well played by Mitch to come in and take advantage of Dwight’s indecisiveness and steal him from Brooklyn (where he looked certain to go). And Bynum’s injuries have made this deal look even better. Complex 4 team trades that work are hard to put together, so he deserves credit for this.
This deal can still blow up for Mitch however, which is why it’s worrying that right now I’ve put Mitch into the shallow end of the elite GM’s largely because this move tips him in. Dwight could leave, and if he does Mitch has unquestionably F#@$’d up. The handling of Dwight could have been a lot better this season, and Mitch has to take his share of the blame for that (especially since he hired the coach, and can fire him). Mitch has created an atmosphere in which Kobe can easily cause a coach to be fired, and that in turn means you’re always going to have an element of “media circus” in LA. It was true of the 3-peat Lakers, and nobody minded it much, but in situations like this year you remember why smart front offices (like the Spurs) create an environment in which nothing negative escapes the locker room (if it exists at all), nothing is leaked to the press, nobody is able to throw their team mates under a bus in the media, etc.
Of course Kobe and others are to blame too for these childish antics, but Mitch has empowered Kobe to behave like this in the way they’ve treated him. He got a GOAT coach fired, and then after that no coach would cross him (and even Phil gave up trying to control him fully). That has led to problems. Bad leadership, especially on D, and unnecessary media fights. How many times do you hear other stars call out their own team mates in the press in respectable front offices? Not often. Yet it feels like it happens every year in LA, and Kobe telling Pau to “put his big boy pants on” after yet another year in which he’d been asked to change his role (quite unfairly, since what he used to do worked fine) was not helpful. Calling Dwight on faking the seriousness of his injuries is not helpful.
If Dwight leaves, if Bynum suddenly looks healthy and rips it up for the next few years, and/or if the Lakers go into a slump (and give up valuable draft picks they’ve been trading away like candy for their recent acquisitions like Nash, Sessions and Dwight) then this can turn into a catastrophe. For now though, it’s a big win.
The coaching debacleI don’t think a lot needs to be said here about D'Antoni. Regardless of how ownership was involved, Mitch is the GM of the team, and when you hire a coach whose game plan is to make your 7-0 all-star big man shoot 3’s (something he’s never done in his whole career), you have to take some blame for that. This could cost them the season, and worse it could cost them Dwight. This could go down as one of the worst decisions the Lakers have ever made. Mitch definitely needs to be accountable for picking Mike Brown when Adelman was available (and who wasn’t even considered a candidate by the Lakers!). Just to remind people, even with all the injuries the Wolves were 16-15 this year before Adelman took a leave of absence to care for his wifes health. In games Adelman has actually coached he's led the injury decimated Wolves to a 28-38 record. He is a vastly superior and more adaptable and experienced coach than D'Antoni (almost the opposite of adaptable) or Mike Brown (good at D, hopeless on O and only runs Iso's)
For the moment, Mitch is better than a good GM, but he isn’t truly elite, and he could potentially look like a really mediocre one depending on how the next few years pan out (especially this offseason). I think one of the most important things he needs to do going forward is to get a new coach who will press Kobe to either accept a more limited role for the good of the franchise, and to address when Kobe is going to retire. Kobe can’t keep leading the NBA in shots and having a top 3 usage, especially since it will create problems with Dwight (who the Lakers need to be the face of their franchise going forward), something I knew before Dwight held up a box score and complained about his lack of shots in public. Kobe needs to do what guys like David Robinson needed to do when Tim Duncan came along- accept a smaller role for the good of the team, and become less vocal in the media, in an effort to try and improve the media circus LA has created.
