Superteam vs Rebuild?

[madmaxmedia]

Assuming if the 'best' option is to tank again another year, at what point do the ends no longer justify the means? I get the main goal is to win a championship, but a big part of sports is simply enjoying watching it.

We don't even know what tanking another year would get us, if we got a top 3 pick. With the odds (first to get lucky in lottery, then to get lucky in the draft), and development time it takes for even a good top 3 pick to potentially pay off, well if your city is any kind of draw at all to FA I would hope you can rebuild through FA or trades instead. I guess I just rebutted my own point through...

I don't think the Lakers should overpay for anyone. I guess I'll just say that the first goal should be to pitch every top-tier FA that makes sense roster-wise, and then if nothing pans out, go to tanking as Plan B.

[ALL HAIL]

There won't be a superteam any time soon. The only option is to rebuild. And the best move is to tank again next year (top 3 protected again).

That's unequivocally the right move.

But Buss is going to go out guns blazing and get whatever talent he can get this summer. His goal isn't championship, his goal is to get past 2nd round so his sister won't fire him.

I couldn't disagree with you more. This franchise needs to become somewhat respectable again by winning, not by rolling the dice on winning the "lottery".

It should tell you something that Portland, Dallas, and Boston have far greater chances of landing a guy like Durant than the Lakers.

The difference between the Lakers and those other teams I mentioned: They're winning.

[Johnny Bball]

I'm beginning to like the idea more and more, however unlikely it is to really happen.

Trade Randle/Lou Will for Anthony
Trade the #3 Pick for Paul
Sign Wade and James
Resign Bass and Kelly
Sign a defensive/change-of-pace PG

PG - Paul (33) - Weber (5)
SG - Wade (32) - Russell (25)
C - James (32) - Bass (25)
PF - Kelly (15) - Anthony (33)
SF - Young (25) - Nance (10)

Would the Clippers and Knicks do the trades? That's the big question for me.

There's a thing called the salary cap and the cba. It's impossible to make all those trades or signings for more than a few reasons.

[ALL HAIL]

I'm beginning to like the idea more and more, however unlikely it is to really happen.

Trade Randle/Lou Will for Anthony
Trade the #3 Pick for Paul
Sign Wade and James
Resign Bass and Kelly
Sign a defensive/change-of-pace PG

PG - Paul (33) - Weber (5)
SG - Wade (32) - Russell (25)
C - James (32) - Bass (25)
PF - Kelly (15) - Anthony (33)
SF - Young (25) - Nance (10)

Would the Clippers and Knicks do the trades? That's the big question for me.

There's a thing called the salary cap and the cba. It's impossible to make all those trades or signings for more than a few reasons.

Enlighten me sensei.

[Johnny Bball]

I'm beginning to like the idea more and more, however unlikely it is to really happen.

Trade Randle/Lou Will for Anthony
Trade the #3 Pick for Paul
Sign Wade and James
Resign Bass and Kelly
Sign a defensive/change-of-pace PG

PG - Paul (33) - Weber (5)
SG - Wade (32) - Russell (25)
C - James (32) - Bass (25)
PF - Kelly (15) - Anthony (33)
SF - Young (25) - Nance (10)

Would the Clippers and Knicks do the trades? That's the big question for me.

There's a thing called the salary cap and the cba. It's impossible to make all those trades or signings for more than a few reasons.

Enlighten me sensei.

92 million dollar cap. Those 4 players alone cost more than 23 mil each. And that would be if you traded the entire team and the remaining 27 mil in salary. That includes randle, Russell ( which you would need to do to get them anyway). Melo is at 25 mil, Paul is at 23. LBJ does not take a discount for anything this time. Neither does Wade.

You can't trade without matching salarys in this league if you don't have cap space you can't exceed the cap that way. So trading for Paul for a pick or trading for melo for Williams and randle doesn't work.

That's why there's a trade machine!. http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine

And no. The Knicks don't make that deal ( it's really only randle and Lou isn't worth anything) but the clippers especially don't make that deal since they are competitive. Then you have the issue of Melos no trade clause. I assume he would accept the lakers. But only if it's written in and it's not right now with what's going on. Then there is the fact that wade is retiring in Miami and that lbj doesn't want to look like a huge pariah again and leave Cleveland after trading their future.

[ALL HAIL]

There's a thing called the salary cap and the cba. It's impossible to make all those trades or signings for more than a few reasons.

Enlighten me sensei.

92 million dollar cap. Those 4 players alone cost more than 23 mil each. And that would be if you traded the entire team and the remaining 27 mil in salary. That includes randle, Russell ( which you would need to do to get them anyway). Melo is at 25 mil, Paul is at 23. LBJ does not take a discount for anything this time. Neither does Wade.

You can't trade without matching salarys in this league if you don't have cap space you can't exceed the cap that way. So trading for Paul for a pick or trading for melo for Williams and randle doesn't work.

That's why there's a trade machine!. http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine

And no. The Knicks don't make that deal ( it's really only randle and Lou isn't worth anything) but the clippers especially don't make that deal since they are competitive. Then you have the issue of Melos no trade clause. I assume he would accept the lakers. But only if it's written in and it's not right now with what's going on. Then there is the fact that wade is retiring in Miami and that lbj doesn't want to look like a huge pariah again and leave Cleveland after trading their future.

I really don't want to get into an argument about this, as I really don't see it happening, obviously ... but it could definitely work financially.

Unless James is merely exaggerating when he says "I'd take a paycut for that," which is possible, I'd venture to say he would. To come play with all his homies, I think he would.

... And we'd only have to pay Wade more than Miami, who has their own set of financial dilemmas and decisions to make.

Is Miami really prepared to make paying Wade a priority when they've got his replacement on the roster making less than a mill for the next two years, and they want to "court" Durant, all while figuring out what to do with Whiteside?

They're going to lowball him again, and when they do this time, he'll probably call Bron-Bron.

I think any offer for Wade that comes in right under 20 mill, say 18 mill, would get the job done. That way, Wade'd be making, probably, top-dollar while also playing on the ultimate collabo.

We'll see though.

[Jakay]

I'd stick to our young core without hesitating. I wouldn't roll the dice on an aging core of superstars and then become the Brooklyn Nets, a terrible team without picks for years. I don't want to experience another 2012-13 Lakers. I think our core of Russell, Clarkson, Randle and company could turn into something special sooner than later.

You don't aim for aging superstars though. You aim for the rookie contract leaving his team, and then the guys hitting their prime. Then when that's working, you go for vets.

Anyhow, more generally, neither option.

[milesfides]

You don't sell low or buy high, unless you absolutely have to.

And we don't have to, because we're nowhere close to being a competitor.

We just have to ride this out, nobody died, we know these are kids, and they'll just have to continue growing up, because they and we don't have much choice.

If I had some say in ownership, I'd make sure Jim doesn't sell high just to make it to the 2nd round. This is still a marathon unless we land a league-changing player.

Watching the Wolves and Golden State, you see two teams that were perennial lottery laughingstocks, until they build a core strong enough to the point where nobody is laughing (Golden State) and people are starting to take notice (Wolves). If you have a front office that knows what it's doing, they'll take their lumps in the short term, then pour champagne later.

The Lakers just missed out on this because we got our talent through free agency. But that game is up.

Forget Golden State. We're not going to be ready to compete with them.

The Wolves have next, they clearly have the best young core in the league. We need to start thinking about beating them, and it's actually going to be pretty tough. That's why we need to tank in '17 - we just don't have enough talent. If we're not getting it through free agency, then we need to get it through the draft (primarily) and then trades (lesser so, much more difficult).

[stan francisco]

You don't sell low or buy high, unless you absolutely have to.

And we don't have to, because we're nowhere close to being a competitor.

We just have to ride this out, nobody died, we know these are kids, and they'll just have to continue growing up, because they and we don't have much choice.

If I had some say in ownership, I'd make sure Jim doesn't sell high just to make it to the 2nd round. This is still a marathon unless we land a league-changing player.

Watching the Wolves and Golden State, you see two teams that were perennial lottery laughingstocks, until they build a core strong enough to the point where nobody is laughing (Golden State) and people are starting to take notice (Wolves). If you have a front office that knows what it's doing, they'll take their lumps in the short term, then pour champagne later.

The Lakers just missed out on this because we got our talent through free agency. But that game is up.

Forget Golden State. We're not going to be ready to compete with them.

The Wolves have next, they clearly have the best young core in the league. We need to start thinking about beating them, and it's actually going to be pretty tough. That's why we need to tank in '17 - we just don't have enough talent. If we're not getting it through free agency, then we need to get it through the draft (primarily) and then trades (lesser so, much more difficult).

Good points. Agreed (except the 2017 tank)...

[milesfides]

Unless Ingram dominates right away and we can bank on his becoming Durant, I don't see how Russell-Ingram-Randle would be better than LaVine-Wiggins-Towns, all of whom are projected to become top-five at their positions within a couple years.

So we definitely need to tank another year...not only because we need at least one surefire stud who can play on both ends, but also our draft pick in 2018 loses any protection (to Philly).

So 2017 is our last chance to keep our 1-3 pick, which is where we need to pick anyways for an elite player.

ONE MORE YEAR.

[MAMBAEMD]

Unless Ingram dominates right away and we can bank on his becoming Durant, I don't see how Russell-Ingram-Randle would be better than LaVine-Wiggins-Towns, all of whom are projected to become top-five at their positions within a couple years.

So we definitely need to tank another year...not only because we need at least one surefire stud who can play on both ends, but also our draft pick in 2018 loses any protection (to Philly).

So 2017 is our last chance to keep our 1-3 pick, which is where we need to pick anyways for an elite player.

ONE MORE YEAR.

Agree. As painful as that sounds, that may likely be our reality.
But there is a potential caveat. If we get the number one pick in 2016 (and pick Simmons) and somehow Durant decides that he wants to play here, then there is no tanking next year.
Those are big ifs, but it could happen.

[stan francisco]

Lakers make big things happen when they have to. I expect nothing less this summer. I have no doubt that we'll be a playoffs team next year.

[madmaxmedia]

You don't sell low or buy high, unless you absolutely have to.

And we don't have to, because we're nowhere close to being a competitor.

A 'superteam' is not necessarily buying high, in that AAA players are worth more than their max contracts. If a slightly past their peak Lebron and DWade were willing to take a small hair cut to play together, then that's not necessarily buying high either (in terms of market value and ROI.) I think Boston and New Jersey are pretty good examples of how to do it right, and how to do it very wrong.

Of course if the Lakers keep their pick and feel there is a superstar waiting for them at their draft position (whether that's 1, 2, or 3), everyone agrees that's the number 1 focus. As you say, the Lakers are nowhere close to being a competitor.

If a team/city is truly an attractive destination for free agents, I would hang my hat on signing that prime AAA free agent (a superstar today that again you're getting very good ROI due to max salary) and then building around that. But I guess that's not Los Angeles right now.