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

[RexRyan]

$136 million set on fire, as well as two moves totally against anything resembling a "plan." Caron Butler's a great locker room presence, and he could be had for the minimum. F

Can Caron Butler play to the level of Luol Deng? It wasn't just about "locker room" presence. It was about getting adults in the room who could run the system effectively and show the rookies on the court playing with them how it should be done.

There were much, much better options than shelling out $70 million for Luol Deng. Hefty one year deals could have been offered to adults in the room without destroying financial flexibility.

[mtron929]

I just hate the Mozgov Deng signing as these two combine for 4 years 140+ million dollars yet, they are high risk (injuries, fading away) low reward (peaked already, both over 30) signings. I especially hate this because it seems to indicate that the Lakers already think that they have their young core for the future. Guys like Ingram and Russell are fine prospects but they might not be superstar materials. In this type of a scenario, you want to sign younger players and adopt a high risk high reward attitude. The veteran players can be signed for minimum to provide leadership role. You do not need leader ship at 35+ million a year taking up the cap for 4 years.

Just stupid, and it is a bad symptom that this team is pretty much clueless.

[Statlanta]

Looking from the outside I think they did alright this offseason. Yi and Mozgov(timing) were completely questionable but all in all they got veterans to piece with their young core. I think they did what they could in FA as Whiteside and Horford were the only starting caliber players in their main position of need, Jones and D-Mo only would push Randle out, and Biyombo or Ezeli were really backup quality type of guys. I think a core of Randle, Russell, Nance and Ingram is enough potential for the future to go forward and I think Russell and Ingram can really develop into high quality starters if not All-Star level players in the future.

[Slava]

From the yahoo salary page, apparently only $250k guaranteed to Yi and about $6.8 mil in incentives.

Yi Jianlian Roster 8,000,000 - - - - 2017 2016 Protection: $250,000

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/teams/lal/salary/

[Fotis St]

I believe they are in stealth tank mode (or call it rebuilding-development mode) to get back their 2017 1st round draft pick.
It is 1-3 protected, so by tanking they 75% get their draft pick back.
Taking #1 - #3 would make Lakers a serious contender 3years from now.
While tanking they will develop their young players, Ingram-Russell among others.
So likely this is their goal and if I have to rank their offseason based on their goal, it is an A.

[HartfordWhalers]

From the yahoo salary page, apparently only $250k guaranteed to Yi and about $6.8 mil in incentives.

Yi Jianlian Roster 8,000,000 - - - - 2017 2016 Protection: $250,000

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/teams/lal/salary/

If you hover off his name on http://www.basketballinsiders.com/los-angeles-lakers-team-salary/
they have the full description, which is rounded into the OP as Yi Jianlian 1/8m (250k gtd, 1.2m base salary, 2.3m bonus each at playing 20/40/59 games)

[DanishLakerFan]

My two cents:

I think it's almost impossible to gauge the Lakers' offseason without looking at specific dates:

Prior to free Agency:
Hired Luke, fired Byron, drafted Ingram and Zubac. Grade: A+. Can't see how you can possible do any better than they did. Simmons would have been nice, but he was off the board and Ingram is a cleaner fit. Zubac looks like a steal. Luke was the hottest young coach in the nba.

Free Agency:
They had their sights on Whiteside, Durant etc. but early on they realized that these guys werent interested, so instead they made a decision to build on their youth and put quality veterans around them. In that regard, Deng and Mozgov were good options. Deng amazingly haven't slowed down much and is ideal as a mentor and a 3s/D do-it-all-wing and Brian Shaw knew Mozgov from his stint in Denver and he's also a really good mentor. Generally, the idea to build around the youth is fine, but the problem is that the deals they gave out were so ridiculous that it basically removed their chances of making big moves, such as trying to trade for Westbrook. I understand that after two off-seasons where guys flew off the board early in free agency they didn't want to wait, but they could have done a lot better - or at least gotten the same guys at smaller price-tag. Grade: D.

Late free Agency:
Westbrook renegotiated his deal, effectively taking him off the 2017 free agency class that currently doesn't really include any game-changing players - other than Curry and Griffin, who likely will stay put. In other words, despite being able to having upwards of 40M next summer, there aren't a lot of guys that are worth that kind of money, which makes the signings of Deng and Mozgov less damaging. Overall: B-.

Going forward, i expect them to win 25-30 games but focus on playing the right way and i think we'll see a team that really is going in the right direction. They may still end up with a poor record and might even land yet another top 3, which would be awesome. I think Ingram and Russell are the only guys that are untouchable and they will be looking to deal everyone else. I think they'll target Boogie Cousins in 2018 or perhaps sooner, if they can get him via free Agency.

[blind prophet]

My two cents:

I think it's almost impossible to gauge the Lakers' offseason without looking at specific dates:

Prior to free Agency:
Hired Luke, fired Byron, drafted Ingram and Zubac. Grade: A+. Can't see how you can possible do any better than they did. Simmons would have been nice, but he was off the board and Ingram is a cleaner fit. Zubac looks like a steal. Luke was the hottest young coach in the nba.

Free Agency:
They had their sights on Whiteside, Durant etc. but early on they realized that these guys werent interested, so instead they made a decision to build on their youth and put quality veterans around them. In that regard, Deng and Mozgov were good options. Deng amazingly haven't slowed down much and is ideal as a mentor and a 3s/D do-it-all-wing and Brian Shaw knew Mozgov from his stint in Denver and he's also a really good mentor. Generally, the idea to build around the youth is fine, but the problem is that the deals they gave out were so ridiculous that it basically removed their chances of making big moves, such as trying to trade for Westbrook. I understand that after two off-seasons where guys flew off the board early in free agency they didn't want to wait, but they could have done a lot better - or at least gotten the same guys at smaller price-tag. Grade: D.

Late free Agency:
Westbrook renegotiated his deal, effectively taking him off the 2017 free agency class that currently doesn't really include any game-changing players - other than Curry and Griffin, who likely will stay put. In other words, despite being able to having upwards of 40M next summer, there aren't a lot of guys that are worth that kind of money, which makes the signings of Deng and Mozgov less damaging. Overall: B-.

Going forward, i expect them to win 25-30 games but focus on playing the right way and i think we'll see a team that really is going in the right direction. They may still end up with a poor record and might even land yet another top 3, which would be awesome. I think Ingram and Russell are the only guys that are untouchable and they will be looking to deal everyone else. I think they'll target Boogie Cousins in 2018 or perhaps sooner, if they can get him via free Agency.

25 to 30?

Not a chance.

There's not an EZ out in the west. The non playoff teams are still gonna be tough, and the East is more stable than it was.

If you get 20 wins, I'd be impressed

[BullyKing]

My two cents:

I think it's almost impossible to gauge the Lakers' offseason without looking at specific dates:

Prior to free Agency:
Hired Luke, fired Byron, drafted Ingram and Zubac. Grade: A+. Can't see how you can possible do any better than they did. Simmons would have been nice, but he was off the board and Ingram is a cleaner fit. Zubac looks like a steal. Luke was the hottest young coach in the nba.

Free Agency:
They had their sights on Whiteside, Durant etc. but early on they realized that these guys werent interested, so instead they made a decision to build on their youth and put quality veterans around them. In that regard, Deng and Mozgov were good options. Deng amazingly haven't slowed down much and is ideal as a mentor and a 3s/D do-it-all-wing and Brian Shaw knew Mozgov from his stint in Denver and he's also a really good mentor. Generally, the idea to build around the youth is fine, but the problem is that the deals they gave out were so ridiculous that it basically removed their chances of making big moves, such as trying to trade for Westbrook. I understand that after two off-seasons where guys flew off the board early in free agency they didn't want to wait, but they could have done a lot better - or at least gotten the same guys at smaller price-tag. Grade: D.

Late free Agency:
Westbrook renegotiated his deal, effectively taking him off the 2017 free agency class that currently doesn't really include any game-changing players - other than Curry and Griffin, who likely will stay put. In other words, despite being able to having upwards of 40M next summer, there aren't a lot of guys that are worth that kind of money, which makes the signings of Deng and Mozgov less damaging. Overall: B-.

Going forward, i expect them to win 25-30 games but focus on playing the right way and i think we'll see a team that really is going in the right direction. They may still end up with a poor record and might even land yet another top 3, which would be awesome. I think Ingram and Russell are the only guys that are untouchable and they will be looking to deal everyone else. I think they'll target Boogie Cousins in 2018 or perhaps sooner, if they can get him via free Agency.

25 to 30?

Not a chance.

There's not an EZ out in the west. The non playoff teams are still gonna be tough, and the East is more stable than it was.

If you get 20 wins, I'd be impressed

They won 17 last year. I don't think 25 is that big a jump. I hated what they did directionally this offseason but I think its pretty clear that swapping Kobe, Hibbert, and Byron for Ingram, Deng, Mozgov, and Walkton makes them a better team next year (even if it hurts them longterm).

[blind prophet]

They won 17 last year. I don't think 25 is that big a jump. I hated what they did directionally this offseason but I think its pretty clear that swapping Kobe, Hibbert, and Byron for Ingram, Deng, Mozgov, and Walkton makes them a better team next year (even if it hurts them longterm).

It's the talent of the conference. The Kings won 33, I've got them at 28 or 29 with the current roster with a massive asterisk if they figure out the pg depth.

So its nothing personal.

I've got Dallas, Houston, Minny 8-10 and that range is going to be tougher than usual. Denver and Sacramento are not going to be easy wins either. NO could fall apart, but that won't be an easy out if healthy. Phoenix should be better this season.

That's where the problem is, the toughness of the rest of the conference.

I don't even have the 8th seed above 500.

[Texas Chuck]

I don't even have the 8th seed above 500.

So we know the top half of the conference is giving wins back. OKC isn't going to win as money, nor will the Spurs. And I think the Warriors will both have an adjustment period after major lineup changes, plus a realization that the RS only matters so much so they are giving wins back.

So if you also have the lower playoff teams down this year, then I don't understand why you think the Lakers won't improve their win total? All those wins can't go to the East.

[blind prophet]

I don't even have the 8th seed above 500.

So we know the top half of the conference is giving wins back. OKC isn't going to win as money, nor will the Spurs. And I think the Warriors will both have an adjustment period after major lineup changes, plus a realization that the RS only matters so much so they are giving wins back.

So if you also have the lower playoff teams down this year, then I don't understand why you think the Lakers won't improve their win total? All those wins can't go to the East.

I think the strength of the teams is pretty strong for the non playoff teams Chuck. Not good enough obviously if they are not top 8, but tougher than usual. Tougher in no mans land.

So that means more loses to those teams from maybe seeds 6 to 8. Top 5 in the West it probably won't matter as much. So even if there are less wins from maybe the Spurs, OKC, and possibly the Warriors, they'll fall more diversified than just to the top 8 spots. I think its a tougher schedule for everyone this year.

Also I'm not completely sold of anyone's strength 8-10, I think its real real close. I don't think the next tier down is weak either.

Who are the Lakers going to beat Chuck?

Are they gonna beat the Spurs? OKC? Warriors?

Is Portland weaker?

Jazz are stronger.

I don't see the Lakers netting much more win wise from all of this, I see every night tougher for most everyone.

If you look at the standings poll, its like 90% agreement that Lakers are in the gutter. So I'm curious why you think they will win more games actually.

[jbk1234]

I don't even have the 8th seed above 500.

So we know the top half of the conference is giving wins back. OKC isn't going to win as money, nor will the Spurs. And I think the Warriors will both have an adjustment period after major lineup changes, plus a realization that the RS only matters so much so they are giving wins back.

So if you also have the lower playoff teams down this year, then I don't understand why you think the Lakers won't improve their win total? All those wins can't go to the East.

Only 51% need to go to the East though. I feel like Utah and Memphis could cannibalize a lot of the wins the elite teams are going to give up. They don't necessarily get spread around evenly.

[blind prophet]

Also Chuck's not thinking of the game improvements from Utah and Minny either.

[Texas Chuck]

Also Chuck's not thinking of the game improvements from Utah and Minny either.

Huh?

I do understand quite well that there are teams who will be improved this year. Pelicans should win more. Nuggets should win more. Suns should win more.

But injuries happen so there will be good and bad teams who win less games than we expect right now which offsets some of that. I just think the Lakers are a better team than last year and their off-season decisions make it pretty clear that they will be trying to win games--especially to start the year. And you can be a very mediocre team and still win 30 games. I mean the Kings, Nuggets, and Pelicans all won more than that last year and the Wolves almost did. If this Lakers team is healthy there really is no reason to expect them to be 10-15 games worse than those squads were last year.

[blind prophet]

Also Chuck's not thinking of the game improvements from Utah and Minny either.

Huh?

I do understand quite well that there are teams who will be improved this year. Pelicans should win more. Nuggets should win more. Suns should win more.

But injuries happen so there will be good and bad teams who win less games than we expect right now which offsets some of that. I just think the Lakers are a better team than last year and their off-season decisions make it pretty clear that they will be trying to win games--especially to start the year. And you can be a very mediocre team and still win 30 games. I mean the Kings, Nuggets, and Pelicans all won more than that last year and the Wolves almost did. If this Lakers team is healthy there really is no reason to expect them to be 10-15 games worse than those squads were last year.

That's a lot of should win mores. If you think about it the way I have, that translates to more competition, more competitiveness from no mans land.

And like I said, I think 8-10 is up for grabs.

Just don't see the Lakers grabbing any of it. The middle of the pack is better. If the Kings actually get some depth at pg even more so.

I've got the Kings under without changes from last year, Nuggets about the same, NO I'll have to wait and see about health and Phoenix improving.

And the reason for some of that like the Nuggets about the same is simply because everyone else is tougher in the mid range.

I think you are going to see good competitive basketball much deeper than usual. The West had a clear pecking order for a long long time, we are entering a transition period in some ways. A lot up for grabs.

[Slava]

Pelton's RPM projections have the Lakers at around 24 wins and the general trend made it seem like it was under projecting for most teams by about 5 wins, I'd take that as the baseline. So arguing that 20 wins is too big a leap is a bit of a lost cause.

[Texas Chuck]

I don't think the Lakers are going to make the playoffs either. But there is a big gap between 17 wins and 40+ you know?

[HartfordWhalers]

Pelton's RPM projections have the Lakers at around 24 wins and the general trend made it seem like it was under projecting for most teams by about 5 wins, I'd take that as the baseline. So arguing that 20 wins is too big a leap is a bit of a lost cause.

Not sure what you mean about under projecting. The Pelton RPM ones should add up to the number of wins in a season, so if it is systematically off it needs to be so in opposite ways to balance.

But for the Lakers you have
24.5 (Pelton RPM basis)
25 ESPN summer forecast
23.3 (Some guy on Reddit using bpm -
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/4zdfhx/oc_201617_nba_strength_of_schedule_bpm_win/ )


Thats a pretty tight prediction cluster, where as our reviews went 21, 26, 30, 30.

For what it is worth, I could find one line looking for the Lakers online at 29 with the under getting all the money but the line not corrected yet. My guess is when all of the season ones come out the Lakers will be at 26 or 27, but we will see.

[blind prophet]

Pelton's RPM projections have the Lakers at around 24 wins and the general trend made it seem like it was under projecting for most teams by about 5 wins, I'd take that as the baseline. So arguing that 20 wins is too big a leap is a bit of a lost cause.

I think 20 wins would be baseline for success.

Anything more would be a great season.