Ben Simmons-Joel Embiid Duo

[flyerhawk]

Clarkson was one of the more desirable SG free agents this year. Lou Williams is not far removed from winning 6th man of the year. You're undervaluing both, but you've no reason to be following the Lakers closely, just as I don't with the Sixers. I was upset when the Lakers didn't pursue Covington prior to the Sixers getting him, but with Ingram now on the roster and Deng to be a mentor, that's water under the bridge.

I'm not slagging the Lakers. The Lakers have a young team that has promise. But there are lots of examples of young teams with promise that don't develop.

The team as constructed and based on past performance is a 30 win team. Which is about 10 more wins than I think the Sixers are at. But neither is going anywhere without their young guns stepping up and becoming big time players. If Ingram becomes the next Kobe then the Lakers will be a great team. If he never develops a reliable jump shot then the Lakers will be another 40 win team that sneaks into the playoffs once in a while and that's about it. The same is true for the Sixers with Simmons.

 

[Sparhawk]

You are misreading the Lakers situation. They are growing as a young team and a young coach with some added veteran free agent support. The Lakers didn't chase any high priced free agents (they would have made exceptions for Durant or Whiteside, but that was it and was moot anyway). The Lakers already have a full starting lineup of 1st round prospect talent (Zubac slipped as he didn't want to be a stash player, and Clarkson would be a 1st rounder if that draft were re-picked today); are they supposed to tank to add rookie depth?

The young talent has to be on the floor learning together, not eternally tanking to add another piece. If the Lakers luck out and retain their pick via some lottery magic this season, so be it. If not, they get their 1st rounder next year instead. It may seem like the Lakers overpaid for free agents, but if Deng and Mozgov had been signed a year earlier and received cap adjusted salaries of $13M and $11M respectively, nobody would bat an eye.

You do realize Mozgov and Deng take up 33% of your cap for the next four years.
That's a lot of money to pay for babysitting.
And if they do play significant minutes, then they're stagnating that potential growth of the younger players.

It seems like the FA moves were to win now to placate fans, at the risk of jeopardizing long term success.

 

[shopson67]

You do realize Mozgov and Deng take up 33% of your cap for the next four years.
That's a lot of money to pay for babysitting.
And if they do play significant minutes, then they're stagnating that potential growth of the younger players.

It seems like the FA moves were to win now to placate fans, at the risk of jeopardizing long term success.

I don't see it that way at all. Signing Mozgov, if anything, has alienated a lot of fans as he was not a touted free agent and was their first, quick signing. Deng is an easier sell. You have to spend money to add quality depth, especially in this summer's cap increase spending spree.

 

[flyerhawk]

I don't see it that way at all. Signing Mozgov, if anything, has alienated a lot of fans as he was not a touted free agent and was their first, quick signing. Deng is an easier sell. You have to spend money to add quality depth, especially in this summer's cap increase spending spree.

That doesn't change the fact that they are eating up a lot of the Lakers cap.

 

[shopson67]

That doesn't change the fact that they are eating up a lot of the Lakers cap.

Cap money that had to be spent.

 

[Sparhawk]

Cap money that had to be spent.

No, teams aren't forced to spend that money.
If you're below the cap, the difference in money goes to the players.

That's cap room that can help facilitate a trade to acquire more assets/picks.
Spending money just to spend money is the trap that mid-level teams constantly fall into.

 

[knowyourenemy]

You are misreading the Lakers situation. They are growing as a young team and a young coach with some added veteran free agent support. The Lakers didn't chase any high priced free agents (they would have made exceptions for Durant or Whiteside, but that was it and was moot anyway). The Lakers already have a full starting lineup of 1st round prospect talent (Zubac slipped as he didn't want to be a stash player, and Clarkson would be a 1st rounder if that draft were re-picked today); are they supposed to tank to add rookie depth?

The young talent has to be on the floor learning together, not eternally tanking to add another piece. If the Lakers luck out and retain their pick via some lottery magic this season, so be it. If not, they get their 1st rounder next year instead. It may seem like the Lakers overpaid for free agents, but if Deng and Mozgov had been signed a year earlier and received cap adjusted salaries of $13M and $11M respectively, nobody would bat an eye.

The problem with the Deng and Mozgov signings is that 32.5% of the Lakers' cap in 2019-2020 will be dedicated to those two players. It doesn't totally hamstring the Lakers because they have a good amount of cap flexibility built in right now but it may limit what they can offer Randle, Russell, and Zubac or limit the number of big name free agents that the team is able to bring in. In my opinion, those deals would have been better if they were 3 year deals . . . but we know contract negotiations don't really work that way.

As it is now, you're looking at 2019-2020 being Russell (RFA that offseason), Clarkson ($13m and FA following offseason), Ingram (RFA following offseason), Randle (Presumed re-signed previous offseason), Mozgov ($16m), Deng ($18m), Zubac (RFA that offseason).

For 2019-2010, if you plug in (guesstimates marked with "~"):

Russell ~$18 million
Randle ~$18 million
Clarkson $13 million
Ingram ~$8 million
Deng $18 million
Mozgov $16 million
Zubac ~$10 million

You're at $101 million. The cap is projected to be $104 million that season.

 

[knowyourenemy]

It was your statement that the Lakers were a year ahead of the Sixers and their schedule.
Are the Sixers winning a ring this year? No.
Lakers? No.
If you are stating that the Lakers are better (in terms of wins this year), then sure, nobody argues that.

You do realize it would have been in the Lakers best interests to tank this year.
Now they're stuck overpaying for free agents and chasing a playoff bubble spot.
Short term 'success' at the cost of long term potential, which is exactly where the Sixers were prior to Hinkie.

Actually, I'd be happy to argue that. What it really comes down to is how big of a difference you think Simmons, Saric, and Embiid will make for the 76ers. I happen to think the difference will be significant, even if there are growing pains along the way. Yes, the Lakers have gotten better by adding Ingram, Deng, and Mozgov but I think the 76ers have improved by even more. And if the 76ers are able to swap a big man for an equivalent perimeter player (which I recognize is a huge "if"), then the potential for this season and beyond becomes even more promising.

 

[knowyourenemy]

Clarkson was one of the more desirable SG free agents this year. Lou Williams is not far removed from winning 6th man of the year. You're undervaluing both, but you've no reason to be following the Lakers closely, just as I don't with the Sixers. I was upset when the Lakers didn't pursue Covington prior to the Sixers getting him, but with Ingram now on the roster and Deng to be a mentor, that's water under the bridge.

Clarkson is certainly better than "below average," as suggested by flyerhawk. I'm not sure how good he will ultimately end up being but he's young and he's shown a lot of promise so far. I would have been thrilled if the 76ers were able to lure him away from the Lakers.

 

[Sparhawk]

Actually, I'd be happy to argue that. What it really comes down to is how big of a difference you think Simmons, Saric, and Embiid will make for the 76ers. I happen to think the difference will be significant, even if there are growing pains along the way. Yes, the Lakers have gotten better by adding Ingram, Deng, and Mozgov but I think the 76ers have improved by even more. And if the 76ers are able to swap a big man for an equivalent perimeter player (which I recognize is a huge "if"), then the potential for this season and beyond becomes even more promising.

Simmons, Saric, and Embiid have played zero minutes in an actual NBA game.
25-35 wins seems feasible.

If the Sixers win 25 and the Lakers win 35, I would be very happy with our outlook for the future.
Both the Sixers and Lakers young core would have taken a step forward in development, but the Sixers have the better salary cap structure and draft picks moving forward.

 

[knowyourenemy]

Simmons, Saric, and Embiid have played zero minutes in an actual NBA game.
25-35 wins seems feasible.

If the Sixers win 25 and the Lakers win 35, I would be very happy with our outlook for the future.
Both the Sixers and Lakers young core would have taken a step forward in development, but the Sixers have the better salary cap structure and draft picks moving forward.

I realize that. They're all huge question marks. I have a lot of optimism about Simmons, specifically, though. If I had to guess, I'd say the Lakers will probably win more games than the 76ers but I don't write off the possibility that the 76ers could put things together and end up the in the low 30s in wins and that things might not go as well for the Lakers and they end up in the mid or high 20s. Honestly, what do the Lakers have to inspire anyone to say -- wow, that team is definitely going to win more games than (insert any team in the NBA.)

 

[Sparhawk]

I realize that. They're all huge question marks. I have a lot of optimism about Simmons, specifically, though. If I had to guess, I'd say the Lakers will probably win more games than the 76ers but I don't write off the possibility that the 76ers could put things together and end up the in the low 30s in wins and that things might not go as well for the Lakers and they end up in the mid or high 20s. Honestly, what do the Lakers have to inspire anyone to say -- wow, that team is definitely going to win more games than (insert any team in the NBA.)

It's to our benefit that the Lakers finish with more wins.
ESPN actually projects the Lakers to finish dead last in the West.

But, I would agree with what you said. I'm highly optimistic too, but I still need to see them play.
Can Simmons and Saric average 12/7/5?
Think about that for a second.

 

[flyerhawk]

Actually, I'd be happy to argue that. What it really comes down to is how big of a difference you think Simmons, Saric, and Embiid will make for the 76ers. I happen to think the difference will be significant, even if there are growing pains along the way. Yes, the Lakers have gotten better by adding Ingram, Deng, and Mozgov but I think the 76ers have improved by even more. And if the 76ers are able to swap a big man for an equivalent perimeter player (which I recognize is a huge "if"), then the potential for this season and beyond becomes even more promising.

The Sixers could be better. But I would bet the Lakers wind up with slightly more wins if I were forced to.

As for Clarkson, I was probably a little harsh on him and I don't watch a lot of Lakers basketball but he's 24 and has 2 years under his belt of ok basketball. So far his shooting has been decidedly meh which is, IMO, the primary metric for a 2.

 

[shopson67]

The problem with the Deng and Mozgov signings is that 32.5% of the Lakers' cap in 2019-2020 will be dedicated to those two players. It doesn't totally hamstring the Lakers because they have a good amount of cap flexibility built in right now but it may limit what they can offer Randle, Russell, and Zubac or limit the number of big name free agents that the team is able to bring in. In my opinion, those deals would have been better if they were 3 year deals . . . but we know contract negotiations don't really work that way.

As it is now, you're looking at 2019-2020 being Russell (RFA that offseason), Clarkson ($13m and FA following offseason), Ingram (RFA following offseason), Randle (Presumed re-signed previous offseason), Mozgov ($16m), Deng ($18m), Zubac (RFA that offseason).

For 2019-2010, if you plug in (guesstimates marked with "~"):

Russell ~$18 million
Randle ~$18 million
Clarkson $13 million
Ingram ~$8 million
Deng $18 million
Mozgov $16 million
Zubac ~$10 million

You're at $101 million. The cap is projected to be $104 million that season.

Lakers can go over to resign their own players. They're not going to risk losing any key players over the salary cap. They have always been willing to spend. By 19/20, Deng and Mozgov will be expiring contracts, which may make them desirable in trades.

 

[shopson67]

The Sixers could be better. But I would bet the Lakers wind up with slightly more wins if I were forced to.

As for Clarkson, I was probably a little harsh on him and I don't watch a lot of Lakers basketball but he's 24 and has 2 years under his belt of ok basketball. So far his shooting has been decidedly meh which is, IMO, the primary metric for a 2.

He's not truly a 2. I see his future as more of a combo guard 6th man unless he drastically improves his play as a 2. He's been working hard on that shot this offseason, looking good so far.

 

[shopson67]

No, teams aren't forced to spend that money.
If you're below the cap, the difference in money goes to the players.

It has to be spent one way or another is my point. If it can spent on players that help the development of the core, I'm all for it.

They have been holding back on signing everyone this summer in case a potential trade arises.

 

[shopson67]

Schedule makers aren't doing the Lakers and Sixers any favors; they have the two toughest schedules in the league. Lakers' opponents had a .515 winning percentage on average last season, while the Sixers' opponents had a .512 winning percentage on average (tied with the Wolves for 2nd toughest). The Warriors have the easiest (WTF?) with a .480 opponent winning percentage on average. Cavs are at .497 for comparison.

 

[Sparhawk]

Schedule makers aren't doing the Lakers and Sixers any favors; they have the two toughest schedules in the league. Lakers' opponents had a .515 winning percentage on average last season, while the Sixers' opponents had a .512 winning percentage on average (tied with the Wolves for 2nd toughest). The Warriors have the easiest (WTF?) with a .480 opponent winning percentage on average. Cavs are at .497 for comparison.

Because the Warriors and their .890 Win% don't have to play themselves.
Conversely, the Sixers have a .122 W% that they don't play against, either.

The East is weaker so the Cavs play more of the weaker teams than the West would.

 

[knowyourenemy]

Lakers can go over to resign their own players. They're not going to risk losing any key players over the salary cap. They have always been willing to spend. By 19/20, Deng and Mozgov will be expiring contracts, which may make them desirable in trades.

Of course they can go over to re-sign their own players. But what big name free agent is going to sign on to playing with the Lakers unless the core of Ingram/Russell/Randle has developed into something good? The problem is that the better that Russell and Randle are, the less money Los Angeles will have to sign potential free agents.

Sure, they may be able to move Deng and Mozgov, but what will it cost to move them?

 

[knowyourenemy]

The Sixers could be better. But I would bet the Lakers wind up with slightly more wins if I were forced to.

As for Clarkson, I was probably a little harsh on him and I don't watch a lot of Lakers basketball but he's 24 and has 2 years under his belt of ok basketball. So far his shooting has been decidedly meh which is, IMO, the primary metric for a 2.

Yeah. If I had to bet on it, I'd take the Lakers as well. But I don't think it's a slam dunk.