rating mitch kupchak as a GM

[trojanfan12]

Mitch right now is a yes man. Jim wants to control all decision regardless of how he plays it off as a "group" effort. Everybody knows Mike Brown was his deal. Same with D'antoni. Seriously, there's no possibility that Mitch would recommend D'antoni over a guy who's gotten so much success for the franchise over the years - Phil.
That said, even as a trigger for Jerry Buss, Mitch wasn't good with doling out money. Giving Luke that contract was stupid. (I said don't do it it before he was a free agent.) And Mitch as a talent evaluator missed out on lots of opportunities the last few years. Getting Lin was a simple transaction but he listened to his coach (who knew nothing about Lin- therefore no deal) BB fans did. If you needed a PG, Drafting Thomas shoulda been a no brainer but, no, we had to get Darius Dribbles. On what planet does a talent evaluator deem Morris a better PG than Thomas? It was pretty easy to see. Isaiah >>>> Morris. Takes 2 minutes of anybody's' time to come to that conclusion. Morris had size and that's it.

Actually, each was a Dr. Buss hire. As for the rest of your post.......I defer to LALakersboy!!

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Mitch right now is a yes man. Jim wants to control all decision regardless of how he plays it off as a "group" effort. Everybody knows Mike Brown was his deal. Same with D'antoni. Seriously, there's no possibility that Mitch would recommend D'antoni over a guy who's gotten so much success for the franchise over the years - Phil.
That said, even as a trigger for Jerry Buss, Mitch wasn't good with doling out money. Giving Luke that contract was stupid. (I said don't do it it before he was a free agent.) And Mitch as a talent evaluator missed out on lots of opportunities the last few years. Getting Lin was a simple transaction but he listened to his coach (who knew nothing about Lin- therefore no deal) BB fans did. If you needed a PG, Drafting Thomas shoulda been a no brainer but, no, we had to get Darius Dribbles. On what planet does a talent evaluator deem Morris a better PG than Thomas? It was pretty easy to see. Isaiah >>>> Morris. Takes 2 minutes of anybody's' time to come to that conclusion. Morris had size and that's it.

Fun fact: Luke Walton was a fan favorite. When he was given that 6 year/$30 million contract he averaged over 11 ppg - not bad for a 5th option on the floor. He helped put butts in seats and, believe it or not, sold over HALF A MILLION jerseys all across the world (at $100 a pop, you do the math)

Plus he was eventually shipped out in a deal that brought Jordan Hill in at the end.
Like Lakersboy said, hard to take a Lakers AND Clippers fan seriously...

 

[trojanfan12]

Fun fact: Luke Walton was a fan favorite. When he was given that 6 year/$30 million contract he averaged over 11 ppg - not bad for a 5th option on the floor. He helped put butts in seats and, believe it or not, sold over HALF A MILLION jerseys all across the world (at $100 a pop, you do the math)

Plus he was eventually shipped out in a deal that brought Jordan Hill in at the end.
Like Lakersboy said, hard to take a Lakers AND Clippers fan seriously...

Most important of all..............Phil liked him. He used to especially like to put him in when the Lakers would stray from running the triangle. Luke was great at getting them back on track.

 

[Retroram52]

Plus he had a knack for hitting a timely three that would start an enduring run that would snuff the life out of the opposition. Ole cool-hand Luke was indeed a good role player for us.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Much respect for Luke. I like seeing him at TWC now.

 

[trojanfan12]

I still have (and wear) a Luuuuuuuke T-shirt!!

 

[LALakersboy24.7]

Luuuukkkkeee!!!

 

[bluepigpen]

Somewhere between dumb and dumber after having to please Short Buss!

 

[GMATCa]

Anyone who hands a three-year contract to a thirty-eight-year old should resign in shame.

Now, whether the person really responsible for that contract was Kupchak or Jim Buss, I don't know.

 

[GMATCa]

And to think that the Lakers could have inked Goran Dragic for less money per year than Nash ...

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

And to think that the Lakers could have inked Goran Dragic for less money per year than Nash ...

It's a gimmick. Just like Karl Malone and Gary Payton were. Fun to have a past superstar on the team for a year or two but nowhere near as good as they use to be.

I have a Nash lakers jersey! Why not?

 

[trojanfan12]

Anyone who hands a three-year contract to a thirty-eight-year old should resign in shame.

Now, whether the person really responsible for that contract was Kupchak or Jim Buss, I don't know.

People crack me up. When Nash was brought in along with Howard, most experts had the Lakers in the finals and many had them winning. The talk was about how Nash running the offense would mean more even ball distribution making the Lakers more dangerous. Plus he's a knockdown 3 point shooter. Even at 38, he was one of the top PG's in the league.

Most experts were talking about how the Lakers had "done it again".

Then his body breaks down on him and suddenly these same experts are talking about how stupid and dysfunctional the Lakers FO is.

 

[GMATCa]

People crack me up. When Nash was brought in along with Howard, most experts had the Lakers in the finals and many had them winning. The talk was about how Nash running the offense would mean more even ball distribution making the Lakers more dangerous. Plus he's a knockdown 3 point shooter. Even at 38, he was one of the top PG's in the league.

Most experts were talking about how the Lakers had "done it again".

Then his body breaks down on him and suddenly these same experts are talking about how stupid and dysfunctional the Lakers FO is.

He was thirty-eight; that's what happens to older athletes (see Derek Jeter, or Alex Rodriguez, or Shaquille O'Neal, or Hakeem Olajuwon, or Scottie Pippen, or even Michael Jordan), and that's why you don't hand out three-year contracts, especially at major money, to thirty-eight-year old players. Even Karl Malone broke down with the Lakers at slightly younger age than what Nash will be when his deal expires.

In retrospect, I don't think that signing Nash made that much basketball sense for the Lakers (I'll try to go back to that point in the other thread later), but if you want to try the experiment for a year, fine. However, you don't give a three-year contract to a thirty-eight-year old.

As for the 'experts,' most people who cover sports aren't that smart (that's why they cover sports), and the NBA is probably the most poorly covered sports in the country. Oh, there's plenty of chatter ... and very little insight.

 

[GMATCa]

He was thirty-eight; that's what happens to older athletes (see Derek Jeter, or Alex Rodriguez, or Shaquille O'Neal, or Hakeem Olajuwon, or Scottie Pippen, or even Michael Jordan), and that's why you don't hand out three-year contracts, especially at major money, to thirty-eight-year old players. Even Karl Malone broke down with the Lakers at slightly younger age than what Nash will be when his deal expires.

In retrospect, I don't think that signing Nash made that much basketball sense for the Lakers (I'll try to go back to that point in the other thread later), but if you want to try the experiment for a year, fine. However, you don't give a three-year contract to a thirty-eight-year old.

As for the 'experts,' most people who cover sports aren't that smart (that's why they cover sports), and the NBA is probably the most poorly covered sports in the country. Oh, there's plenty of chatter ... and very little insight.

... most poorly covered sports league, I meant to write.

 

[LALakersboy24.7]

:rollseyes:

 

[trojanfan12]

He was thirty-eight; that's what happens to older athletes (see Derek Jeter, or Alex Rodriguez, or Shaquille O'Neal, or Hakeem Olajuwon, or Scottie Pippen, or even Michael Jordan), and that's why you don't hand out three-year contracts, especially at major money, to thirty-eight-year old players. Even Karl Malone broke down with the Lakers at slightly younger age than what Nash will be when his deal expires.

In retrospect, I don't think that signing Nash made that much basketball sense for the Lakers (I'll try to go back to that point in the other thread later), but if you want to try the experiment for a year, fine. However, you don't give a three-year contract to a thirty-eight-year old.

As for the 'experts,' most people who cover sports aren't that smart (that's why they cover sports), and the NBA is probably the most poorly covered sports in the country. Oh, there's plenty of chatter ... and very little insight.

True about him being 38, but his issues prior to last year had proven to be very manageable until last year. The broken leg that started this was a freak play so there was no way to predict that.

I agree that 3 years was too long for a player of Nash's age (I wouldn't have given him more than 2), but I don't think the Lakers expected him to be the starter or play starters minutes all 3 years. Nash was brought in because the Lakers wanted to move from the triangle to a more up tempo offense and Nash seemed a great fit to help with that.

End of the day, the Lakers knew 3 years ago that re-building was coming. The Nash/Howard deal was something that virtually every other GM in the league would have done and was an attempt to not have to go through a full re-build. It didn't work, so the Lakers move on and go through the re-build.

 

[OutlawImmortal]

He rarely ever got injured until the freak accident that was his broken leg. He was still averaging 10+ assists per game and next to Dwight and Kobe he was going to be seeing a lot of opportunity for assists and many open shots (which he sunk a lot of during his short time actually being healthy). He was a legitimate option in the fourth quarter too, and I don't know if you remember but he actually took a pay cut to be with the Lakers. If anything we wanted to lock him up for more than a year. This is just a typical case of seeing things clearer after the fact.

 

[GMATCa]

He rarely ever got injured until the freak accident that was his broken leg. He was still averaging 10+ assists per game and next to Dwight and Kobe he was going to be seeing a lot of opportunity for assists and many open shots (which he sunk a lot of during his short time actually being healthy).

When the Lakers signed him, Nash remained one of the best shooters and passers in the NBA. But he was also a defensive liability who would force Kobe Bryant to absorb more defensive responsibility at a time when Bryant should have been assuming less. Moreover, at thirty-eight, the potential for breaking down was going to be heightened, regardless of his past health. Karl Malone had missed 10 games in eighteen seasons with the Jazz before he joined the Lakers, but then, at the age of forty, he missed 40 regular season games with Los Angeles before again breaking down in the NBA Finals. So once an athlete reaches a certain age, past health history can become irrelevant. In his final three seasons, spanning ages thirty-eight to forty-one (Nash's ages during this Laker contract), even Cal Ripken became injury-prone, missing 38.9 percent of his team's games.

Cal Ripken Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Again, that's why you don't give three-year contracts to thirty-eight-year olds, regardless of their health histories. And with no disrespect intended to the Lakers' medical and training staff, one might also note that Nash was no longer going to be under the care of the Suns' cutting-edge medical and training staff. I mean, even A.C. Green, who never missed a game to injury in sixteen seasons, might have broken down at the age of thirty-eight; we'll never know, because he smartly retired before reaching that age.

As for the idea of a "freak accident," who's to say that it was really a freak? He suffered an injury on a basketball court. First, his age and mileage might have left him more susceptible to suffering that injury, and second, his age and mileage have almost certainly rendered his comeback more arduous. The situation seems akin to that of Derek Jeter: had he been a decade younger, would he really have broken his ankle, and if so, would he really have missed almost all of the following season trying to recover? With Nash, would he necessarily have broken that leg had he been younger, and if so, would he have taken so long to recover? Let's not be naive: age makes a difference.

Also, Nash was still averaging 10-plus assists in Phoenix in a system that catered to him and created maximum floor spacing. A point guard's assists average tends to be determined more by his system and the extent to which he controls the ball than by the talent of his supporting teammates. Indeed, more talented teammates often mean fewer assists for a point guard, for he won't dominate the ball as much in that scenario. Moreover, the Lakers' system and personnel was going to constitute more of a hindrance for Nash compared to what he enjoyed in Phoenix. Pau Gasol is merely a decent outside shooter with range to about nineteen feet, whereas Channing Frye in Phoenix amounted to a pure shooter with three-point range. At nineteen feet against a guy who can be a diffident shooter (Gasol), as opposed to twenty-four or twenty-five feet against a guy whose job is to fire away (Frye), the defense can more aggressively help on the "1-5" pick-and-roll (Nash-Howard with the Lakers, Nash-Gortat with the Suns) and more successfully rotate or recover after helping, thus rendering the play less efficient and less likely to produce assists for the point guard. And this analysis from me did not come in retrospect; here are some excerpts from what I wrote on another board on Christmas morning of 2012 (one game after Nash had returned from his leg fracture):

The other problem with the video is that it suggests that just because the "roll man" proved so prolific and efficient in Phoenix playing with Nash, he will necessarily be that way with the Lakers. But that situation existed with the Suns not simply because of Nash, but largely due to the way that Phoenix spread the floor. As one can see from the video, the Suns generally surrounded the pick-and-roll with three off-ball three-point shooters or perimeter players, spaced perfectly. When combined with the modern, revamped defensive three seconds rule (instituted following the 2001 season), the result was that the middle (or the lane) usually proved almost completely open. In basketball, space equals time (the game's fundamental equation), so when defenders are fanned out that widely and need to cover so much space, they often can't help on the pick-and-roll and deal with the "roll man" in time. Often times, the opposing defense doesn't even want to help on the "roll man" (or the ball-handler, Nash in this case) for fear of not being able to help and recover in time to contest a perimeter jump shot for a dangerous perimeter shooter or scorer. Thus if you scrutinize those highlights, you'll find that the Spurs usually preferred to take their chances in the two-on-one situation created by the Suns' pick-and-roll, rather than sending a third defender to help on the play. For when the court is spaced so widely, successful defensive rotations become extremely difficult, sometimes impossible. Therefore, instead of allowing three-point shooters such as Jared Dudley and Channing Frye to find their groove from the perimeter via open looks, San Antonio preferred to gamble that two players (Nash, the ball-handler, and Marcin Gortat, the "roll man") wouldn't be able to overcome the Spurs, even if they proved prolific and efficient.

... the pick-and-roll's dynamics and the quandaries that it creates for the defense are largely determined by spacing, and that the Lakers' spacing usually will not be as wide and deep as Nash and the "roll man" enjoyed in Phoenix. The Lakers can still be effective on that play, but just because Nash is now in Los Angeles doesn't mean that there's going to be a carbon copy of what occurred in Phoenix, even with D'Antoni as coach. For again, the spacing and three-point threats will be comparatively diminished for LA and defenses will hence feel emboldened to help on the "roll man" more so than was the case against Nash's Suns. Of course, the bet is that with superior talent, the Lakers don't need the "perfect" pick-and-roll game that existed in Phoenix, just a more effective one than they featured last year.

Finally, but similarly, the video notes how effective Nash happened to be as an isolation player, but surely, one of the reasons for that efficiency was because so many (perhaps most) of Nash's one-on-one scoring attempts came after the defense switched on the pick-and-roll, leaving Nash against a big man who couldn't stay with him off the dribble or who wouldn't guard him outside. But if the court isn't spaced as widely, the defense will feel less inclined to make disadvantageous switches that result in glaring mismatches, instead choosing to send a third defender to the play, to help and recover. Back when Nash entered the NBA, for example, defenses rarely switched on the pick-and-roll because there was usually little need to do so: there wasn't as much court spacing or as many three-point shooters on the floor and the league had yet to revamp its defensive three seconds rule. Thus defenses could protect the paint more easily and with less fear of being burned from outside.

The game has changed plenty since that time (to the benefit of the pick-and-roll, both the ball-handler and the "roll man"), and Nash will still be able to take advantage of some of those changes as a Laker. But because LA features more of a conventional starting lineup or primary lineup, Nash and the "roll man" won't be able to maximize those advantages to the same extent as in Phoenix. There surely won't be as many two-on-one situations without help, and there surely won't be as many one-on-one plays resulting from switches.

In other words, Nash was not going to be the same player with the Lakers as he had been with the Suns. He was going to become something of a glorified Steve Blake, which was not going to justify his contract or his defensive liabilities, especially given the added defensive pressure that he would place on Kobe Bryant.

He was a legitimate option in the fourth quarter too, and I don't know if you remember but he actually took a pay cut to be with the Lakers.

Of course he took a pay cut; he was thirty-eight. Jordan took a pay cut of almost $32M when he was thirty-eight, compared to when he had previously played for the Bulls (and, yes, Jordan had sat out the previous three years, but he was also in another stratosphere compared to Nash, both as a player and as an economic asset). Yet Phoenix wanted Nash to take more of a pay cut, and he refused. The Lakers still gave Nash major money, and regardless of his annual salary, the real key was giving him three years. Nash left the Suns because they were only willing to give him a two-year contract, and he wanted three years.

 

[GMATCa]

If anything we wanted to lock him up for more than a year.

Why? Who was to say that Nash would still be healthy, or effective, or a smooth fit with the Lakers' personnel and system, after a year? You look to lock up young players and players in their prime for more than a year, not a thirty-eight-year old.

At that age, any team should just go year-to-year with a player, especially in a case where there isn't going to be any 'brand value' in ensuring that he finishes his career in your uniform.

This is just a typical case of seeing things clearer after the fact.

... maybe so, but it's also a case of the Lakers conducting their business really poorly. Signing a thirty-eight-year old to a three-year contract is simply bad business, no two ways around it, and management should not have needed retrospect in order to see that reality.

 

[GMATCa]

True about him being 38, but his issues prior to last year had proven to be very manageable until last year. The broken leg that started this was a freak play so there was no way to predict that.

See my long post above. At that age, a player's health history is absolutely irrelevant, as proved by such cases as Cal Ripken and Karl Malone, and I'm not sure that Nash's injury was really a freak. Certainly, his recovery issues are not a freak and can almost assuredly be attributed to age and mileage, in large part.

I agree that 3 years was too long for a player of Nash's age (I wouldn't have given him more than 2), but I don't think the Lakers expected him to be the starter or play starters minutes all 3 years. Nash was brought in because the Lakers wanted to move from the triangle to a more up tempo offense and Nash seemed a great fit to help with that.

If you want to build an up-tempo offense, you really should not be signing a thirty-eight-year old point guard. Indeed, in Nash's final two seasons in Phoenix, the area where his aging process proved most noticeable was in the decline of his open-court speed and ability to push the basketball. He compensated to a certain extent via the long pass, but without Grant Hill (Nash's favorite target on that play), or guys who were accustomed to that style, or young and athletic players in general, even that option was going to be marginalized in Los Angeles. Frankly, if you possess Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol, and you're trying to trade for Dwight Howard, you need to be a half-court, post-up team. And if you want to add more speed, you need to do so in the form of a younger, faster, more explosive point guard who can run one-man fast breaks, especially one who can help you generate turnovers via steals and ball pressure, two areas where Nash won't help at all.

And if Nash were to have become a backup, or a 20-minute per game player, then his contract would have become even more overpriced.

The Nash/Howard deal was something that virtually every other GM in the league would have done and was an attempt to not have to go through a full re-build.

The Howard experiment made sense because he was still relatively young and the Lakers merely gave up a center with bad knees in Bynum, one whose health constituted a ticking time bomb.

But Nash represented a totally different story, and I don't think that all other general managers would have inked him to a three-year contract. I mean, one could have plausibly argued that a point guard such as Mario Chalmers or Norris Cole would have made more sense for the Lakers moving forward, especially if the cost of acquiring Nash meant giving him three years.

It didn't work, so the Lakers move on and go through the re-build.

... except that Nash's contract is delaying and hindering the process, at least to some extent. The Lakers need to reload around Kobe Bryant, and Nash is in the way.