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

[shopson67]

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.

The plan was always to chase a second star, so those supposed better choices would have to be on one year deals. That limits the choices quite a bit.

 

[eaglesnut]

Lebron has had a worse winter than his scheming hollywood neighbor Jussie Smollet.

Jussie forgot the LeBron lesson that if you do a fake hate crime at your own house you get to hide the security tapes.

 

[trojanfan12]

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.

Yeah, I'm not 100% sure either. I think it had to do with the cap hold. If I understand what I remember correctly, as long as he was an RFA and therefore under the Lakers control, there was a cap hold until he either signed with another team or the Lakers matched. That meant the Lakers wouldn't have had the available space because of the hold.

They would have had to because he would almost certainly have received a longer term, more expensive offer. So if, for example, he gets an offer of say 4 years at $15 million per, that's what they would have had to sign him to which would have meant not having the cap space they needed.

Renouncing him cleared the cap space (and hold) so that they could have the money for a 2nd max guy.

Believe me, I'm a big Julius Randle fanboy and was looking at every scenario I could think of as a way for the Lakers to keep him and still be able to have the necessary cap space for a 2nd max guy. Never could find one.

It looks bad because of how well he played last year, how well he has played this year and them not getting that 2nd max guy. But it was the right move based on what they're trying to do.

 

[trojanfan12]

The plan was always to chase a second star, so those supposed better choices would have to be on one year deals. That limits the choices quite a bit.

It's like some folks think that just because the Lakers make an offer, the player has to take it.

The better FA's aren't looking for 1 year deals, they are looking for multi year deals.

Could they have picked up an FA or 2 on a 1 year deal that fit better with Lebron? Maybe. Maybe even probably.

But it doesn't matter because, as you point out, the Lakers were always going to be looking for a 2nd max level guy, whether it was this past off-season or the upcoming off-season.

So, once they didn't get a 2nd max guy, they were always going to be signing a bunch of 1 year placeholders just to get to this coming off-season.

 

[ericd7633]

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 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.

Or the Spurs and Pelicans didn't want to do a deal because they weren't getting back good enough assets.

And yes Fultz has been awful. But when he's played, Ball's and Fultz's numbers aren't that big of a difference. Ball hasn't been good. He's a slightly above avg defensive player, but that's really it.

 

[ericd7633]

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.

Drafting Ball was a big mistake. If you're drafted #2 you're held to a higher standard. Kuzma is good(although not really all that valuable in terms of wins/losses). Hart has been awful this year and Bryant is no longer on the team. The Lakers have nothing to show for their 2014/2015 drafts and haven't been able to do anything with 2016/2017.

 

[ericd7633]

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.

Yes, Ball is slightly better than arguably the biggest draft bust ever. Congrats, I guess?

 

[shopson67]

Or the Spurs and Pelicans didn't want to do a deal because they weren't getting back good enough assets.

And yes Fultz has been awful. But when he's played, Ball's and Fultz's numbers aren't that big of a difference. Ball hasn't been good. He's a slightly above avg defensive player, but that's really it.

Ball averaged 7 reb and 7 asst per game in his rookie year. Not many others did that last year, and most of them are elite. His numbers dipped a bit this year as Lebron and sometimes Rondo would affect how much he had the ball in his hands, when healthy.

 

[shopson67]

Yes, Ball is slightly better than arguably the biggest draft bust ever. Congrats, I guess?

Miles better, not slightly. Fultz has barely seen the floor and his sample size is too small anyway. It's unfair to him to even evaluate his stats until he gets real consistent playing time.

 

[ericd7633]

Ball averaged 7 reb and 7 asst per game in his rookie year. Not many others did that last year, and most of them are elite. His numbers dipped a bit this year as Lebron and sometimes Rondo would affect how much he had the ball in his hands, when healthy.

MCW avg 16, 6, and 6 his rookie year and he sucks. I don't think Lonzo is as bad as him, but my point is it's easy to put up stats on a bad team when you play alot.

 

[trojanfan12]

Or the Spurs and Pelicans didn't want to do a deal because they weren't getting back good enough assets.

That's exactly what I said. The Spurs weren't looking to rebuild which what the Lakers offer would have been for. So, that made the Raptors offer better for them.

The Pelicans know that, at the least, the Celtics could offer a better deal if they are willing to part with Tatum. The AD deal may have been able to get done had Rich Paul just gone to the Lakers and let them handle it quietly instead of publicly announcing that AD wanted out and wanted to go to the Lakers. We'll never know though because Rich Paul went public.

So, in the Kawhi trade, the Raptors had the better offer. If the Spurs were looking to rebuild, then the Lakers offer would likely have been the better offer.

With AD, there was the way it was handled and the potential of a better offer in the off-season.

And yes Fultz has been awful. But when he's played, Ball's and Fultz's numbers aren't that big of a difference. Ball hasn't been good. He's a slightly above avg defensive player, but that's really it.

Lonzo has averaged 3 more points per game and double the rebounds and assists. He's also well above average defensively.

 

[Bart]

Just as much as the Lakers need another star they need vets who can shoot and defend. Rondo and Lance were terrible fits. If magic at least got somes that fit Lebron better the lakers would have made the playoffs.

 

[dtgold88]

Yeah, I'm not 100% sure either. I think it had to do with the cap hold. If I understand what I remember correctly, as long as he was an RFA and therefore under the Lakers control, there was a cap hold until he either signed with another team or the Lakers matched. That meant the Lakers wouldn't have had the available space because of the hold.

They would have had to because he would almost certainly have received a longer term, more expensive offer. So if, for example, he gets an offer of say 4 years at $15 million per, that's what they would have had to sign him to which would have meant not having the cap space they needed.

Renouncing him cleared the cap space (and hold) so that they could have the money for a 2nd max guy.

Believe me, I'm a big Julius Randle fanboy and was looking at every scenario I could think of as a way for the Lakers to keep him and still be able to have the necessary cap space for a 2nd max guy. Never could find one.

It looks bad because of how well he played last year, how well he has played this year and them not getting that 2nd max guy. But it was the right move based on what they're trying to do.

Here is how I understand it....they can renounce whenever they want. They can choose not to (and make a qualifying offer) but then change their minds. And cap hold for him was, what, $5 mil? so as mentioned, could try and find a max guy and if they do then renounce Randle.

Not sure why you bring up a 4 year, $15 mil per offer. why would he have gotten more as a RFA than he would as a UFA? And what's the diff? Could always decide not to match.

 

[ericd7633]

That's exactly what I said. The Spurs weren't looking to rebuild which what the Lakers offer would have been for. So, that made the Raptors offer better for them.

The Pelicans know that, at the least, the Celtics could offer a better deal if they are willing to part with Tatum. The AD deal may have been able to get done had Rich Paul just gone to the Lakers and let them handle it quietly instead of publicly announcing that AD wanted out and wanted to go to the Lakers. We'll never know though because Rich Paul went public.

So, in the Kawhi trade, the Raptors had the better offer. If the Spurs were looking to rebuild, then the Lakers offer would likely have been the better offer.

With AD, there was the way it was handled and the potential of a better offer in the off-season.





Lonzo has averaged 3 more points per game and double the rebounds and assists. He's also well above average defensively.

Youth or not the Lakers deal(s) just weren't appealing. If either team thought they were getting a future star, one of those deals gets done.

And yeah Ball has better stats, but he also plays alot more minutes per game and has been on much shittier teams. Their per 36 minute numbers aren't that different, neither are their career PER's. They trade places and Lonzo sure as hell isn't getting 30+ minutes per game with Philly.

 

[trojanfan12]

Here is how I understand it....they can renounce whenever they want. They can choose not to (and make a qualifying offer) but then change their minds. And cap hold for him was, what, $5 mil? so as mentioned, could try and find a max guy and if they do then renounce Randle.

Not sure why you bring up a 4 year, $15 mil per offer. why would he have gotten more as a RFA than he would as a UFA? And what's the diff? Could always decide not to match.

They did make a qualifying offer. Then he asked them to renounce him and they accommodated him. Not sure why the timing happened as it did and you don't have any clearer idea than I do. It's really pointless to even bother discussing it anymore. It's been done, it can't be changed and neither of us, or anyone else here, knows what was discussed or why things were done the way they were.

The 4 year $15 million was just an example of what could have been offered. If memory serves, that was the low end number that was being thrown around when he was still an RFA and what the Lakers would have had to match if they chose to keep him.

The difference would have been having to wait to see what his best offer was.

 

[trojanfan12]

Youth or not the Lakers deal(s) just weren't appealing. If either team thought they were getting a future star, one of those deals gets done.

Wrong again. The Spurs weren't looking for a "future star". They were looking to win right now. Not in the future.

The Pels were pissed at the way it was handled and so we don't know if they would have been willing to deal him to the Lakers if the whole thing was handled better.

The main difference between what the Lakers offered and what the Celtics might offer is Tatum. He is the piece that would put their offer over the top.

It's a bit of a gamble for the Pels because if AD says he will only re-sign with the Lakers, it's unlikely that the Celtics will include Tatum.

So no, based on what the Spurs were looking for and the way things were handled...there is no certainty that either of those deals get done. Especially the one with the Spurs.

And yeah Ball has better stats, but he also plays alot more minutes per game and has been on much shittier teams. Their per 36 minute numbers aren't that different, neither are their career PER's. They trade places and Lonzo sure as hell isn't getting 30+ minutes per game with Philly.

Lonzo is a point guard and so is Ben Simmons, so of course Lonzo wouldn't play as much in Philly. Fultz, on the other hand, didn't lose playing time because of Simmons. He lost it because, for whatever reason, he just was terrible.

Lonzo actually has real, observable skills that teams need and want. The only problem he has had has been his shooting and his Dad's big mouth.

As I already pointed out, his passing and court vision are elite level and his defense is well above average.

 

[ericd7633]

Wrong again. The Spurs weren't looking for a "future star". They were looking to win right now. Not in the future.

The Pels were pissed at the way it was handled and so we don't know if they would have been willing to deal him to the Lakers if the whole thing was handled better.

The main difference between what the Lakers offered and what the Celtics might offer is Tatum. He is the piece that would put their offer over the top.

It's a bit of a gamble for the Pels because if AD says he will only re-sign with the Lakers, it's unlikely that the Celtics will include Tatum.

So no, based on what the Spurs were looking for and the way things were handled...there is no certainty that either of those deals get done. Especially the one with the Spurs.



Lonzo is a point guard and so is Ben Simmons, so of course Lonzo wouldn't play as much in Philly. Fultz, on the other hand, didn't lose playing time because of Simmons. He lost it because, for whatever reason, he just was terrible.

Lonzo actually has real, observable skills that teams need and want. The only problem he has had has been his shooting and his Dad's big mouth.

As I already pointed out, his passing and court vision are elite level and his defense is well above average.

I'm not sure it's really much of a gamble. If they don't trade AD, they can tank and start over. Getting mediocre pieces in return and living in the 7-10 range is the worst spot to be in.

Yeah no doubt Fultz has been awful, but he's also behind Simmons and Redick at the guard spots. Lonzo isn't playing over both either. If Fultz was drafted by LA he'd have played more minutes per game no doubt. Lonzo doesn't really have any attributes IMO, outside of his slightly above average defense. If there was anything elite about him, he would viewed as more valuable. He's got no value right now. In his stats and around the league .

 

[DJ]

Or the Spurs and Pelicans didn't want to do a deal because they weren't getting back good enough assets.

And yes Fultz has been awful. But when he's played, Ball's and Fultz's numbers aren't that big of a difference. Ball hasn't been good. He's a slightly above avg defensive player, but that's really it.

Ball's numbers are better. And it's not that close.

 

[DJ]

I'm not sure it's really much of a gamble. If they don't trade AD, they can tank and start over. Getting mediocre pieces in return and living in the 7-10 range is the worst spot to be in.

Yeah no doubt Fultz has been awful, but he's also behind Simmons and Redick at the guard spots. Lonzo isn't playing over both either. If Fultz was drafted by LA he'd have played more minutes per game no doubt. Lonzo doesn't really have any attributes IMO, outside of his slightly above average defense. If there was anything elite about him, he would viewed as more valuable. He's got no value right now. In his stats and around the league .

He's an exceptional passer with great court vision, he's good rebounder, and a good defender. Not that good at scoring however.

 

[ericd7633]

Ball's numbers are better. And it's not that close.

It actually is when you factor in mpg.

Per 36 minutes:
Ball: 11.2 ppg, 7.1 apg, 6.9 rpg
Fultz: 13.5 ppg, 5.9 apg, 6.0 rpg

He essentially gets an extra rebound per 36 minutes and creates the same value combining ppg and apg.