LeBron James and Los Angeles Lakers Have Been Eliminated from Playoff Contention

[trojanfan12]

So are you saying when they signed Lebron it was ALWAYS the plan to get the second star next year?

I think he meant that the plan was always to sign Lebron and another star this year and that if they didn't get another star this year, then the plan was to try to get one the next year.

Basically, he's saying the plan was never to sign Lebron and then if they didn't get another star, to use up their cap space by signing 2nd tier or lower guys to multi-year deals.

 

[dtgold88]

I think he meant that the plan was always to sign Lebron and another star this year and that if they didn't get another star this year, then the plan was to try to get one the next year.

Basically, he's saying the plan was never to sign Lebron and then if they didn't get another star, to use up their cap space by signing 2nd tier or lower guys to multi-year deals.

No disagreement there. Mine is only with those who say Magic/Lebron didn't care if they punted this season from the get-go.

 

[ericd7633]

No disagreement there. Mine is only with those who say Magic/Lebron didn't care if they punted this season from the get-go.

Yeah, I don't understand the notion of completely giving up on Lebron's 34 year old season. It's not like he's getting any younger, and he'll be 35, 1/3 of the way through next season.

Magic completely fucked last offseason up, and didn't do anything during the season either.

 

[shopson67]

Yeah, I don't understand the notion of completely giving up on Lebron's 34 year old season. It's not like he's getting any younger, and he'll be 35, 1/3 of the way through next season.

Magic completely fucked last offseason up, and didn't do anything during the season either.

What was the option? Throw bad contracts at mediocre options (but better than the stop-gaps) with the hope of getting to the 2nd round? Without that second star (which they obviously tried for with George, tried to trade for Kawhi and later Davis), Lebron isn't going to unseat the Warriors.

 

[ericd7633]

What was the option? Throw bad contracts at mediocre options (but better than the stop-gaps) with the hope of getting to the 2nd round? Without that second star (which they obviously tried for with George, tried to trade for Kawhi and later Davis), Lebron isn't going to unseat the Warriors.

Probably wasn't much they could do, other than draft better in 2017 to have better pieces. But not landing another star is a failure. Also, letting go of Randle was a huge mistake as well. Dude is avg 21 and 9 this season. And would be by far the Lakers 2nd best player.

 

[trojanfan12]

Probably wasn't much they could do, other than draft better in 2017 to have better pieces. But not landing another star is a failure.

Lonzo has dealt with injuries the past 2 seasons and was unable to work on his shot this past off-season because he was still recovering from surgery.

He has elite vison and passing skills, he is a very good defender and rebounds well. If he can develop a decent shot, he'll be very good.

Hard to say that not landing another star was a failure when they didn't really get a chance. PG committed to the Thunder before the Lakers got a chance to talk to him and Boogie (reportedly their 2nd choice) blew out his Achilles. They tried to trade for Kawhi and AD and couldn't get that done. The only mistake was not offering more for PG, but even that is hindsight because at the time, they thought they were getting him as free agent.

Also, letting go of Randle was a huge mistake as well. Dude is avg 21 and 9 this season. And would be by far the Lakers 2nd best player.

No it wasn't. They were trying to clear cap space for 2 max level players and keeping Randle would have prevented that. He was an RFA, the Lakers made a qualifying offer, but Randle asked them to renounce him so he could be a UFA and they obliged him. I'm a Randle fanboy and was hoping they'd be able to keep him, but they couldn't and still have cap space for another max player.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Probably wasn't much they could do, other than draft better in 2017 to have better pieces. But not landing another star is a failure. Also, letting go of Randle was a huge mistake as well. Dude is avg 21 and 9 this season. And would be by far the Lakers 2nd best player.

exactly.

The Lakers failures this season were sown long before the season started from poor draft picks to poor trade decisions/non-decisions, poor signings as well as completely bungling the Randle situation from start to finish.

 

[ericd7633]

Lonzo has dealt with injuries the past 2 seasons and was unable to work on his shot this past off-season because he was still recovering from surgery.

He has elite vison and passing skills, he is a very good defender and rebounds well. If he can develop a decent shot, he'll be very good.

Hard to say that not landing another star was a failure when they didn't really get a chance. PG committed to the Thunder before the Lakers got a chance to talk to him and Boogie (reportedly their 2nd choice) blew out his Achilles. They tried to trade for Kawhi and AD and couldn't get that done. The only mistake was not offering more for PG, but even that is hindsight because at the time, they thought they were getting him as free agent.



No it wasn't. They were trying to clear cap space for 2 max level players and keeping Randle would have prevented that. He was an RFA, the Lakers made a qualifying offer, but Randle asked them to renounce him so he could be a UFA and they obliged him. I'm a Randle fanboy and was hoping they'd be able to keep him, but they couldn't and still have cap space for another max player.

Lonzo has been slightly better than Fultz in his career, the only difference is that he's played way more games. He's a bust at this point. He's the MAIN reason why no deal could get done for Kawhi or AD IMO. If you offer up Ingram and #2 pick that asset looks alot better than what it turned out to be.

And yes, I understand what they were trying to by getting rid of Randle. And who knows it might work out, but that doesn't get rid of the fact the Lakers gave away a 24 year old who's avg 21 and 9 playing at an almost all-star level.

 

[dtgold88]

What was the option? Throw bad contracts at mediocre options (but better than the stop-gaps) with the hope of getting to the 2nd round? Without that second star (which they obviously tried for with George, tried to trade for Kawhi and later Davis), Lebron isn't going to unseat the Warriors.

I agree. Once they failed to land the second star at that point there wasn't much they could do to contend for a title, but he definitely could have done a better job putting a team together more equipped to play with Lebron.

 

[dtgold88]

Lonzo has dealt with injuries the past 2 seasons and was unable to work on his shot this past off-season because he was still recovering from surgery.

He has elite vison and passing skills, he is a very good defender and rebounds well. If he can develop a decent shot, he'll be very good.

Hard to say that not landing another star was a failure when they didn't really get a chance. PG committed to the Thunder before the Lakers got a chance to talk to him and Boogie (reportedly their 2nd choice) blew out his Achilles. They tried to trade for Kawhi and AD and couldn't get that done. The only mistake was not offering more for PG, but even that is hindsight because at the time, they thought they were getting him as free agent.



No it wasn't. They were trying to clear cap space for 2 max level players and keeping Randle would have prevented that. He was an RFA, the Lakers made a qualifying offer, but Randle asked them to renounce him so he could be a UFA and they obliged him. I'm a Randle fanboy and was hoping they'd be able to keep him, but they couldn't and still have cap space for another max player.

How about not oblige him and convince him to want to stay (not that he had a choice as LA could match any offer. And since you say there was no max guy once PG had committed to stay with OKC maybe they should have waited to renounce Randle?

 

[dtgold88]

Lonzo has been slightly better than Fultz in his career, the only difference is that he's played way more games. He's a bust at this point. He's the MAIN reason why no deal could get done for Kawhi or AD IMO. If you offer up Ingram and #2 pick that asset looks alot better than what it turned out to be.

And yes, I understand what they were trying to by getting rid of Randle. And who knows it might work out, but that doesn't get rid of the fact the Lakers gave away a 24 year old who's avg 21 and 9 playing at an almost all-star level.

while I agree with much of what you've said it seems a stretch to compare Ball and Fultz.

 

[ericd7633]

while I agree with much of what you've said it seems a stretch to compare Ball and Fultz.

Ball has been better, though, not by a lot in comparison to Fultz IMO. Neither have been even above avg.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Lonzo has been slightly better than Fultz in his career, the only difference is that he's played way more games. He's a bust at this point. He's the MAIN reason why no deal could get done for Kawhi or AD IMO. If you offer up Ingram and #2 pick that asset looks alot better than what it turned out to be.

And yes, I understand what they were trying to by getting rid of Randle. And who knows it might work out, but that doesn't get rid of the fact the Lakers gave away a 24 year old who's avg 21 and 9 playing at an almost all-star level.

mean this has exactly been my point

if your solution to opening cap space is to let go of, and get zero compensation for, a recent lotto pick that is starting to flourish then you have fucked up in a major way.

No one is saying they do not see the Lakers reasoning- just that, opening up cap space by letting go of a guy who is an RFA and would have had to play on the extremely cheap tender is just crazy.

they basically sacrificed Russell and Randle to open up cap space that they never used on a 2nd guy.

 

[trojanfan12]

Lonzo has been slightly better than Fultz in his career, the only difference is that he's played way more games. He's a bust at this point. He's the MAIN reason why no deal could get done for Kawhi or AD IMO. If you offer up Ingram and #2 pick that asset looks alot better than what it turned out to be.

And you'd be wrong. The Spurs didn't want the Lakers offer because they weren't rebuilding. The Lakers offer was kids and picks, as long as Pop is the coach, the Spurs are looking to win, so the Raptors had the better offer.

The AD trade fell apart because Rich Paul tried to publicly bully the Pelicans into trading AD before the deadline rather than waiting until the off-season when they could possibly get a better offer.

If Lonzo never improves his shooting, he will likely have a long NBA career because of his defense, passing and court vision. If his shooting doesn't improve, he won't ever live up to his draft status, but he would be far from a bust.

Fultz, on the other hand, looks like he'll be lucky to stay in the league, let alone, have a long career.

Fortunately for both, they are very young and have time to get better.

And yes, I understand what they were trying to by getting rid of Randle. And who knows it might work out, but that doesn't get rid of the fact the Lakers gave away a 24 year old who's avg 21 and 9 playing at an almost all-star level.

And if they manage to get an actual all star, it won't matter that they gave up Randle. But they wouldn't have even been able to try if they had kept him.

Swinging for the fences like they are is definitely a gamble and it may not work out for them. But they had to try.

 

[trojanfan12]

How about not oblige him and convince him to want to stay (not that he had a choice as LA could match any offer. And since you say there was no max guy once PG had committed to stay with OKC maybe they should have waited to renounce Randle?

Maybe they should have. But they had to have the cap space to even try to get a 2nd max guy. Plus, if they matched other offers, they would have had to sign him to a longer term deal which would mean they couldn't have the cap space to go after a max player this off-season.

 

[shopson67]

Probably wasn't much they could do, other than draft better in 2017 to have better pieces. But not landing another star is a failure. Also, letting go of Randle was a huge mistake as well. Dude is avg 21 and 9 this season. And would be by far the Lakers 2nd best player.

Draft better than Ball, Kuzma, Hart, and Bryant? I understand that many doubt Ball, but that draft was a huge win overall for the Lakers. Kuzma offsets not taking Tatum to some degree, and Hart has been a valuable rotation player. Of course, they screwed up waiving Bryant for cap space over the summer, a bigger gaffe than not retaining Randle IMO. Randle wanted out and the Lakers wanted cap space, so they didn't force the issue. Bryant was exceedingly cheap and has blown up this year.

 

[shopson67]

they basically sacrificed Russell and Randle to open up cap space that they never used on a 2nd guy.

Yet, not never. You're also forgetting Kuzma.

 

[shopson67]

Ball has been better, though, not by a lot in comparison to Fultz IMO. Neither have been even above avg.

You can't be serious. Ball is a solid or better all around player that hasn't scored as expected. Fultz is already on his second team and can't get on the court. You'll be embarrassed by posts like these a few years down the road.

 

[Black Adam]

You can't be serious. Ball is a solid or better all around player that hasn't scored as expected. Fultz is already on his second team and can't get on the court. You'll be embarrassed by posts like these a few years down the road.

#hatersgonnahate

 

[dtgold88]

Maybe they should have. But they had to have the cap space to even try to get a 2nd max guy. Plus, if they matched other offers, they would have had to sign him to a longer term deal which would mean they couldn't have the cap space to go after a max player this off-season.

Not 100% sure of rules but don't believe this is true. They could TRY and get a max guy before renouncing Randle with the premise that IF the guy takes the max deal they would then renounce Randle.

And why would they HAVE TO sign him to a longer term deal? They would only be obligated to sign him to the deal they matched...whatever length that might have been.