Official LOL@the lakers...

[trojanfan12]

I do agree with some of this, but you cannot tell me if they could find shooters to go around Lebron they wouldn't want him. If the Cavs kept Lebron and made similar moves they would correctly get ripped for them.

My god.....Magic and LA let Randall go for next to nothing. Is he not exactly what that team needs? Could he not take pressure off Lebron?

Oh, no doubt they would have put some shooters around him. They admit themselves that they need a shooter or 2. But when Lebron was with the Cavs, he was having to do everything because outside of TT, it was basically perimeter guys. Even Love was playing the perimeter a lot more than he did in Minny.

This forced Lebron to do a lot more of the playmaking, rebounding, etc. That's not really a criticism of the Cavs either. It got them 4 straight finals and a title, so it clearly worked.

The Lakers and Lebron know that, while it worked, it also means a lot of extra wear and tear on his body. So, they want to build a team where he doesn't have to do so much. That's why Lonzo and Rondo are there and why they have guys like Chandler and McGee (rebounding, defense).

The idea is to have Lebron playing at a high level throughout his contract (and beyond?). Not to try to get a title in the first year or 2 and then have him seriously decline over the next 2-3 years.

Will it work? Will Lebron be able to stop himself from trying to do everything, all the time?

Hopefully, it will. If it doesn't, it could end up looking like the last 2 seasons with Kobe. Playing a lot fewer games and just giving occasional reminders of who he used to be.

 

[trojanfan12]

That's exactly the point. They didn't sign "another star player" and guess what. Randle might be better for the Lakers than any star they would have signed, and would have come for far less. Magic is like the typical fan and cares more about name than actual talent and fit it seems.

lol

Stop it.

Randle isn't better for the Lakers than another star player. Randle is good, but his game has flaws and there are plenty of guys who can provide what he does. TT, for example, can provide what Randle would, knows how to play alongside Lebron and has playoff and championship experience. If he were available, he'd wouldn't cost any more than Randle.

The Lakers will be much better off with Lebron and another star than with Lebron and Randle.

 

[dtgold88]

Oh, no doubt they would have put some shooters around him. They admit themselves that they need a shooter or 2. But when Lebron was with the Cavs, he was having to do everything because outside of TT, it was basically perimeter guys. Even Love was playing the perimeter a lot more than he did in Minny.

This forced Lebron to do a lot more of the playmaking, rebounding, etc. That's not really a criticism of the Cavs either. It got them 4 straight finals and a title, so it clearly worked.

The Lakers and Lebron know that, while it worked, it also means a lot of extra wear and tear on his body. So, they want to build a team where he doesn't have to do so much. That's why Lonzo and Rondo are there and why they have guys like Chandler and McGee (rebounding, defense).

The idea is to have Lebron playing at a high level throughout his contract (and beyond?). Not to try to get a title in the first year or 2 and then have him seriously decline over the next 2-3 years.

Will it work? Will Lebron be able to stop himself from trying to do everything, all the time?

Hopefully, it will. If it doesn't, it could end up looking like the last 2 seasons with Kobe. Playing a lot fewer games and just giving occasional reminders of who he used to be.

Very well said and I pretty much agree with all of it.

Cavs actually did have that guy to take pressure off, though, in Kyrie and he hated playing with Lebron. My issue is all the blame went to Gilbert and the FO and almost none to Kyrie and Lebron. Even a story saying the trade was why Lebron left which is laughable. If Lebron wanted Kyrie to stay Lebron could have made it happen. He never called the guy to straighten it out. And the Cavs told him if he'd commit they at least keep Kyrie through his deal. Lebron wouldn't commit.

I wonder if they needed to try harder to get that title sooner as maybe Lebron is gonna fall apart. At least a little. Though certainly possible he is just taking a break like he did his first year back in Cleveland.

 

[trojanfan12]

agreed......but part of that is a 1-8 stretch early in the first year when they still had guys like waiters and no JR and shump yet. In addition, many of the games Kyrie and Love (or both) also didn't play.

Then there's this.......THOSE teams were built to play with Lebron, so seems likely they'd struggle when he didn't play.

And the Lakers lost Rondo at the same time they lost Lebron, had Kuzma miss a couple of games (he's still not 100%) and just lost Lonzo.

I agree about why the Cavs struggled like they did. That's part of why the Lakers are trying to build the team around him the way that they are.

Because the Cavs were built to be so "Lebron-centric", when he missed a game, you could pretty much put it in the loss column no matter who they played. The Lakers are trying to prevent some of that.

 

[dtgold88]

lol

Stop it.

Randle isn't better for the Lakers than another star player. Randle is good, but his game has flaws and there are plenty of guys who can provide what he does. TT, for example, can provide what Randle would, knows how to play alongside Lebron and has playoff and championship experience. If he were available, he'd wouldn't cost any more than Randle.

The Lakers will be much better off with Lebron and another star than with Lebron and Randle.

Huh? TT costs $20 mil per season while Randle signed for $18 mil.....for 2 seasons. Maybe you need to "stop it"?

And I am not one who looks to rip TT like many do. I think he's a solid player and most teams would love to have him, BTW. But Randle is a better scorer than TT and can rebound as well. Does Randle even cost more than the combo of stephenson and Chandler? I doubt it.

 

[dtgold88]

And the Lakers lost Rondo at the same time they lost Lebron, had Kuzma miss a couple of games (he's still not 100%) and just lost Lonzo.

I agree about why the Cavs struggled like they did. That's part of why the Lakers are trying to build the team around him the way that they are.

Because the Cavs were built to be so "Lebron-centric", when he missed a game, you could pretty much put it in the loss column no matter who they played. The Lakers are trying to prevent some of that.

But the Cavs didn't build the team to play without Lebron and why would the Lakers? You build a team to play with him. If they lost a few without him no one cared as clearly seeding did not matter to them. You want another ballhandler (which LA does have) and shooters. That's where they are lacking. Maybe they find them at the deadline? I thought the Cavs might trade Korver to LA. Sounds crazy, but maybe JR?

 

[dtgold88]

Vuc > Love right now. You are overvaluing your own guy (which is very normal for fans). Gordon > TT. Who is the third frontcourt player on the Cavs, Nance, is he better than Isaac?

Point is Wiggy made one of his usual homer overvaluing Cavs posts, and I responded with 6 teams that easily have better frontcourts, in the East alone. Yes Love is a good player, and TT is a nice role player. But this is not the year to even try to compare the Cavs to other teams, they are terrible, and on purpose. Once LeBron left that was all they could do, is tank.

But if I'm a Cavs fan, it's all worth it. I was happy for them winning their one title.

I agree fans overvalue their players, but many Cavs fans IMO undervalue Love and TT. I would bet most think they are bad players which is absurd.

Love is a 20-10 player who can make 3s. Those don't grow on trees (thow Vuc is one, as well). Also has shown he is willing to change his role to fit the team. I get he is older but we are talking about a guy who went for 26 and 14 when he was the focal point of a team.....not sure I could see Vuc ever approaching those numbers. Not like Love is ancient. He's around 30.

Agree on TT. A very solid role player. Not as good as Gordon, I agree, though if needed could be a 12 and 12 guy (or very close). Also one of the better centers in guarding guards on the perimeter.

And, yes, I think Nance is far better than Isaac IMO.

And I agree.....I hope they keep Love and TT out as long as they can as winning is not in their best interests. sucks they changed the lottery rules this year though.

 

[trojanfan12]

do you think there is merit to any of Durant's comments. I do. Especially after seeing a guy rumored to be all but signed there and from the area (PG) chose to play with Westbrook in OKC.

For sure Durant nailed it when talking about the fanboy media. Win in LA and Lebron will get the credit. Lose and he wont be blamed. My God, look how much the cavs get ripped for the Kyrie deal when the only reason there was a deal was he didn't want to play with Lebron......in addition, the Cavs told Lebron they'd keep him if Lebron committed to stay. He wouldn't. shouldn't Lebron get more blame than he did (or at least less on the Cavs)?

Durant did nail it, but imo, it also showed how petty some of these guys are.

Yes, when Lebron's teams win, the media gives him pretty much all of the credit. When his teams lose, the media gives him almost none of the blame. But, the media isn't necessarily incorrect when they do that.

I mean, Lebron has been to 9 finals, in the 3 that he won, he was the obvious finals MVP. In the 6 that he has lost, you could make a solid case for him being finals MVP in at least 4 and probably 5 of them, even though he was on the losing team.

In the 1 where he actually deserved blame (the first finals trip in Miami), he was bashed mercilessly.

 

[dtgold88]

Yes injuries helped us in 2015 and helped you in 2016 (not to mention a key suspension). And even in 2016 you guys barely squeaked out a win in 7 games. It all still counts, but let's not kid ourselves about who was the better team that year at full strength. It was a major upset, and good for them. I was happy for Cleveland and LeBron.

I hope you aren't comparing the situations between 2015 and 2016. Cavs lost Love for the entire series and Kyrie all but one game (and he missed most of OT in game 1). Green missed one game and was because he couldn't stop hitting men in the nads. Hell, even without Kyrie and Love the Cavs still managed 2 wins that year.

agree thought of as a major upset, but those teams those 2 years were very evenly matched. And I was happy, too. ;-)

 

[dtgold88]

Durant did nail it, but imo, it also showed how petty some of these guys are.

Yes, when Lebron's teams win, the media gives him pretty much all of the credit. When his teams lose, the media gives him almost none of the blame. But, the media isn't necessarily incorrect when they do that.

I mean, Lebron has been to 9 finals, in the 3 that he won, he was the obvious finals MVP. In the 6 that he has lost, you could make a solid case for him being finals MVP in at least 4 and probably 5 of them, even though he was on the losing team.

In the 1 where he actually deserved blame (the first finals trip in Miami), he was bashed mercilessly.

agree but not really what I'm getting at. Lebron is the ultimate "do as I say not as I do" guy. He will rip players for being in the wrong place or playing poor D when he does the same as much as anyone.

Thank goodness he was smart enough to let Kyrie take that shot in game 7 as I suspect the usual dribble, dribble, dribble, shoot off balance 3 and miss would have come from him in that spot.

We also know he is a narcissistic, passive aggressive drama queen. All that said, I'm not saying I'm glad he's gone. I appreciate what he did for this city and was hoping he'd stay.

 

[trojanfan12]

Huh? TT costs $20 mil per season while Randle signed for $18 mil.....for 2 seasons. Maybe you need to "stop it"?

TT is making what he does because the Cavs had no choice but to pay him that. They needed his defense, rebounding and ability to get points without having any plays run for him. Had they let him walk, they couldn't replace him with a less expensive option because they had no cap space.

Had the Cavs been in a position to let him walk, they'd only be paying him about what Randle is making, maybe less.

And I am not one who looks to rip TT like many do. I think he's a solid player and most teams would love to have him, BTW. But Randle is a better scorer than TT and can rebound as well. Does Randle even cost more than the combo of stephenson and Chandler? I doubt it.

Randle is a better scorer, but that's it. TT is at least as good on the boards as Randle and is a much better defender.

Of all of the Lakers fans on here, I was probably the biggest Julius Randle fanboy and no one wanted the Lakers to find a way to keep him more than I did. But there was just no way to do it and get the cap space they needed.

Randle doesn't cost more than Stevenson and Chandler, but that isn't the point. Stephenson and Chandler are on expiring deals, they and their salaries will be gone after the season, helping to open another max spot. Randle wouldn't be.

 

[dtgold88]

TT is making what he does because the Cavs had no choice but to pay him that. They needed his defense, rebounding and ability to get points without having any plays run for him. Had they let him walk, they couldn't replace him with a less expensive option because they had no cap space.

Had the Cavs been in a position to let him walk, they'd only be paying him about what Randle is making, maybe less.



Randle is a better scorer, but that's it. TT is at least as good on the boards as Randle and is a much better defender.

Of all of the Lakers fans on here, I was probably the biggest Julius Randle fanboy and no one wanted the Lakers to find a way to keep him more than I did. But there was just no way to do it and get the cap space they needed.

Randle doesn't cost more than Stevenson and Chandler, but that isn't the point. Stephenson and Chandler are on expiring deals, they and their salaries will be gone after the season, helping to open another max spot. Randle wouldn't be.

As to your comment you are preaching to the choir and I've taken that stance to the many who cried about resigning him. It was him (as well as JR and shump) or no one. Not sure I buy he couldn't have gotten more at the time he was a FA from someone.

I get Randle's deal would not expire, but it is minimal and could have kept him and dealt someone else after or during this season if they still wanted to open up enough for another max player. sign Randle and that puts them around 77 mil for next season. If cap doesn't even go up that leaves them around $30 mil for a FA. If they insist they need more for a max guy would think Ingram is moveable.

 

[trojanfan12]

But the Cavs didn't build the team to play without Lebron and why would the Lakers? You build a team to play with him.

A few reasons.

As I already pointed out, the idea is to preserve Lebron so that he can play at a high level throughout his entire contract. The idea is to build a team that isn't as reliant on him as the Cavs were.

Remember, the Cavs got Lebron back at what? Age 29? 30? The Lakers got him at 33. Had he stayed with the Cavs and if the Cavs were smart, they'd have been looking to do what the Lakers are trying to do and re-tool their roster with an eye towards lightening his load.

Also, the Lakers are trying to build a team that isn't so reliant on Lebron so that they can remain relevant after he's gone.

If the Lakers could have their dream scenario, Lonzo, Ingram, Kuzma and Hart would all start showing that they can be a top level team, so that they could keep them and look to sign a top FA and a couple of solid veteran role players in the off-season and be serious contenders going forward.

Additionally, in the West, homecourt is more important than in the East. So, the more games they can win without Lebron, the more it helps their seeding.

 

[trojanfan12]

agree but not really what I'm getting at. Lebron is the ultimate "do as I say not as I do" guy. He will rip players for being in the wrong place or playing poor D when he does the same as much as anyone.

Thank goodness he was smart enough to let Kyrie take that shot in game 7 as I suspect the usual dribble, dribble, dribble, shoot off balance 3 and miss would have come from him in that spot.

We also know he is a narcissistic, passive aggressive drama queen. All that said, I'm not saying I'm glad he's gone. I appreciate what he did for this city and was hoping he'd stay.

Agree with all of this. Of course, they're all like that to some degree or another. Especially KD. lol

 

[dtgold88]

A few reasons.

As I already pointed out, the idea is to preserve Lebron so that he can play at a high level throughout his entire contract. The idea is to build a team that isn't as reliant on him as the Cavs were.

Remember, the Cavs got Lebron back at what? Age 29? 30? The Lakers got him at 33. Had he stayed with the Cavs and if the Cavs were smart, they'd have been looking to do what the Lakers are trying to do and re-tool their roster with an eye towards lightening his load.

Also, the Lakers are trying to build a team that isn't so reliant on Lebron so that they can remain relevant after he's gone.

If the Lakers could have their dream scenario, Lonzo, Ingram, Kuzma and Hart would all start showing that they can be a top level team, so that they could keep them and look to sign a top FA and a couple of solid veteran role players in the off-season and be serious contenders going forward.

Additionally, in the West, homecourt is more important than in the East. So, the more games they can win without Lebron, the more it helps their seeding.

I get this might be what you want in an ideal world, but seems likely for the 3 years he's locked in he will be their best player. Seems they want to go to the playoffs and maybe win a title. Would think the best way to do that is find a team that plays its best with Lebron on the court as he will play in the playoffs right?

Other than the last year here when Kyrie left (because he didn't want to play with lebron) you think the Lakers plan gives them a better chance than a team led by Love and Kyrie? with other shooters like Korver and JR and another solid rebounder in TT?

 

[dtgold88]

Agree with all of this. Of course, they're all like that to some degree or another. Especially KD. lol

No doubt about that. I keep thinking without either the cap exploding when it did or KD making what some would call a bitch move the Cavs might have finished off a 3-peat last year.

 

[trojanfan12]

As to your comment you are preaching to the choir and I've taken that stance to the many who cried about resigning him. It was him (as well as JR and shump) or no one. Not sure I buy he couldn't have gotten more at the time he was a FA from someone.

I've had my share of fun at the Cavs expense over TT's contract. But I've also always said that the Cavs had no choice and pretty much any other team would have done the same in the Cavs position.

TT wasn't getting more at that time. At least not very much more. I don't think folks realized how important he actually was to that team.

I get Randle's deal would not expire, but it is minimal and could have kept him and dealt someone else after or during this season if they still wanted to open up enough for another max player. sign Randle and that puts them around 77 mil for next season. If cap doesn't even go up that leaves them around $30 mil for a FA. If they insist they need more for a max guy would think Ingram is moveable.

It's not minimal when you need every penny so that you can open 2 max spots.

Believe me, with as much of a Randle fanboy as I was, I followed it pretty closely. The Lakers were looking for ways to try to keep him. There just weren't any.

Ingram is on his rookie deal, he gets a little over $5 million per year. Randle was up for an extension. Even if Randle signed with the Lakers for what he did the Pelicans, it's still almost twice what Ingram is making.

 

[trojanfan12]

I get this might be what you want in an ideal world, but seems likely for the 3 years he's locked in he will be their best player. Seems they want to go to the playoffs and maybe win a title. Would think the best way to do that is find a team that plays its best with Lebron on the court as he will play in the playoffs right?

The idea is to make sure that he's their best player foir the whole contract. Again, we're talking about 33 year old (now 34) Lebron. Not 29 year old Lebron. Even with as much of a physical freak as Lebron is, he's not indestructible and Father Time will eventually get him, just like he does everyone else.

The Lakers and Lebron knew that they aren't winning a title this year. Even if they had gotten PG, or Kawhi or anyone else, they weren't getting past the Warriors. So, they chose to try to preserve Lebron for the long term rather than go all in to win this year.

Also, the Cavs were in a different position because, not only was Lebron younger, but they had a up and coming star in Kyrie who was ready to take the next step and were able to bring in another all star in Love.

 

[trojanfan12]

No doubt about that. I keep thinking without either the cap exploding when it did or KD making what some would call a bitch move the Cavs might have finished off a 3-peat last year.

I don't know about a 3-peat. But the last 2 finals would have been a helluva lot more competitive and I'm betting the Cavs get at least 1 of them.

 

[dtgold88]

I've had my share of fun at the Cavs expense over TT's contract. But I've also always said that the Cavs had no choice and pretty much any other team would have done the same in the Cavs position.

TT wasn't getting more at that time. At least not very much more. I don't think folks realized how important he actually was to that team.



It's not minimal when you need every penny so that you can open 2 max spots.

Believe me, with as much of a Randle fanboy as I was, I followed it pretty closely. The Lakers were looking for ways to try to keep him. There just weren't any.

Ingram is on his rookie deal, he gets a little over $5 million per year. Randle was up for an extension. Even if Randle signed with the Lakers for what he did the Pelicans, it's still almost twice what Ingram is making.

agree with all of this, but Ingram is close to $8 mil next season in salary. Could move Hart, as well, and free up $10-11 mil if they wanted.