So, Who's the moron that said the Lakers are the better-operated franchise than the Cavs?

[True Lakers Fan]

correct, and 21 is not 82.

wont go so far as to call it retarded, but calling MJ just "one player" seems a bit absurd, doesn't it?

You think LA wins more games if Lebron misses every game and Ingram/Ball miss 7-10 or they all miss 20 games?

When you have three starters out 21 games, there are very few teams that can survive it - The Lakers weren't one of them and again you have missed the point. This team didn't miss the playoffs because of mismanagement or poor coaching - they missed the playoffs because of too many injuries. Some deeper teams may very well hang on enough to make the playoffs and get healthy again - But no team is going to missed two of their starters for the rest of the season and then win a championship -you act as if making the playoffs and then winning championships without two or three of your best players is normal and to be expected - It's not

 

[tlance]

When you have three starters out 21 games, there are very few teams that can survive it - The Lakers weren't one of them and again you have missed the point. This team didn't miss the playoffs because of mismanagement or poor coaching - they missed the playoffs because of too many injuries. Some deeper teams may very well hang on enough to make the playoffs and get healthy again - But no team is going to missed two of their starters for the rest of the season and then win a championship -you act as if making the playoffs and then winning championships without two or three of your best players is normal and to be expected - It's not

No.

You are missing the point.

They missed the playoffs because of injuries AND very poor roster management.

With better role players and different handling of the AD situation, they might have won 4-5 more games before the all star break, still been in the hunt and LBJ returned and everything else would be different since that point.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

No.

You are missing the point.

They missed the playoffs because of injuries AND very poor roster management.

With better role players and different handling of the AD situation, they might have won 4-5 more games before the all star break, still been in the hunt and LBJ returned and everything else would be different since that point.

Except that's not true - the Lakers were in playoff contention until after the injuries -

 

[tlance]

Except that's not true - the Lakers were in playoff contention until after the injuries -

Yes they were.

But they needed an injury free, drama free season to get there.

Better roster management would have allowed more margin for error. They didn't have much this year.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Yes they were.

But they needed an injury free, drama free season to get there.

Better roster management would have allowed more margin for error. They didn't have much this year.

No team is built strong enough to lose three starters - That's ridiculous and everyone knows that the Lakers rebuild was not completed last summer and couldn't be - LeBron knew that was okay with that himself. In fact my reason for not wanting LeBron is that I don't think the Lakers can't rebuild the team while he is still a Laker. He's too old and it usually takes two to three years to get a team that good. The Lakers also needed to keep the right pieces and they needed to shed both Deng and Mozgov. The Lakers as of 2018 by my estimate were a minimum of 3 years or 4 of being able to the right players needed to actually contend. I don't think it's realistic to think even with this year they can do that - but if the injuries hadn't occurred, then they would have been in the top 5 teams and good enough to get beat in the 2nd or 3rd round. Like they were - there was no way in hell they could beat the Warriors. Everyone knew that already and anyone thinking the Lakers is going to have a drama free season hasn't been following them or been paying attention

 

[tlance]

No team is built strong enough to lose three starters - That's ridiculous and everyone knows that the Lakers rebuild was not completed last summer and couldn't be - LeBron knew that was okay with that himself. In fact my reason for not wanting LeBron is that I don't think the Lakers can't rebuild the team while he is still a Laker. He's too old and it usually takes two to three years to get a team that good. The Lakers also needed to keep the right pieces and they needed to shed both Deng and Mozgov. The Lakers as of 2018 by my estimate were a minimum of 3 years or 4 of being able to the right players needed to actually contend. I don't think it's realistic to think even with this year they can do that - but if the injuries hadn't occurred, then they would have been in the top 5 teams and good enough to get beat in the 2nd or 3rd round. Like they were - there was no way in hell they could beat the Warriors. Everyone knew that already and anyone thinking the Lakers is going to have a drama free season hasn't been following them or been paying attention

Just stop.

Nobody is saying they were going to beat the Warriors this year.

But it sounds like you are saying that signing Stephenson, Rondo and KCP were good moves and that the way they handled the AD trade didn't hurt them.

It did. They should have done better this year even with the injuries.

 

[trojanfan12]

Yes they were.

But they needed an injury free, drama free season to get there.

Better roster management would have allowed more margin for error. They didn't have much this year.

Here's the problem I have with the "better roster management" argument.

Once the Lakers didn't land a 2nd max player, they were always going to go with a bunch of 1 year placeholders to preserve cap space.

It didn't/doesn't matter who those players were since it was/is unlikely that they would be on the team past this one season.

We also don't know who they talked to and who was willing to come in on 1 year deals. Players who take those kinds of deals, typically don't have a lot of other options. Players with other options, typically aren't looking for 1 year deals.

Pretty much everyone said before the season started that any significant injuries, especially if one of them was Lebron, would pretty much end any chance they had at the playoffs.

People want to pile on and act surprised that this team isn't making the playoffs when, even if they stayed healthy, there was always the possibility that they wouldn't have made it. This was never the roster that they were going to try to win a title with. The only real surprise, imo, was how well they were playing before the injuries hit.

Could they have put better pieces around Lebron? Maybe. Maybe even probably. It's certainly possible that once they knew that a 2nd guy wasn't coming, they just decided to sign whoever they could as quickly as they could so they could move on and start planning for next year.

Also, considering how Lebron's teams have typically performed when he has missed games and that they missed out on the 2nd max guy, it seems unlikely that they would have made the playoffs even with a more "Lebron-friendly" roster. Especially in the West.

 

[trojanfan12]

Just stop.

Nobody is saying they were going to beat the Warriors

But it sounds like you are saying that signing Stephenson, Rondo and KCP were good moves and that the way they handled the AD trade didn't hurt them.

It did. They should have done better this year even with the injuries.

The AD debacle, imo, is the bigger issue. Even bigger than the injuries.

It's easy to sell a top player on the idea that if the team had a guy like that, they would likely have still made the playoffs. Players all understand that injuries happen.

What is much harder to sell them on is the idea of coming to a team that appears to have lost it's chemistry and trust. Especially when the cause of it seems to be the teams best player.

Lebron, Rich Paul and Magic all have some serious work to do this off-season to try and minimize that enough to be attractive to top players.

 

[tlance]

Here's the problem I have with the "better roster management" argument.

Once the Lakers didn't land a 2nd max player, they were always going to go with a bunch of 1 year placeholders to preserve cap space.

It didn't/doesn't matter who those players were since it was/is unlikely that they would be on the team past this one season.

We also don't know who they talked to and who was willing to come in on 1 year deals. Players who take those kinds of deals, typically don't have a lot of other options. Players with other options, typically aren't looking for 1 year deals.

Pretty much everyone said before the season started that any significant injuries, especially if one of them was Lebron, would pretty much end any chance they had at the playoffs.

People want to pile on and act surprised that this team isn't making the playoffs when, even if they stayed healthy, there was always the possibility that they wouldn't have made it. This was never the roster that they were going to try to win a title with. The only real surprise, imo, was how well they were playing before the injuries hit.

Could they have put better pieces around Lebron? Maybe. Maybe even probably. It's certainly possible that once they knew that a 2nd guy wasn't coming, they just decided to sign whoever they could as quickly as they could so they could move on and start planning for next year.

Also, considering how Lebron's teams have typically performed when he has missed games and that they missed out on the 2nd max guy, it seems unlikely that they would have made the playoffs even with a more "Lebron-friendly" roster. Especially in the West.

I agree with most of what you said.

The part I don't agree with is that it does matter who those 1 year rentals are.

Because if they had chosen guys who actually fit with LeBron and the rest of the roster, they could have had a much better season despite the injuries and without giving up their long term cap space.

Problem is, now players on the outside are questioning the stability of the Laker management team because of who they choose to sign and how they handled the AD drama.

There is a good chance that will negatively impact their ability to get players in the future.

 

[trojanfan12]

I agree with most of what you said.

The part I don't agree with is that it does matter who those 1 year rentals are.

Because if they had chosen guys who actually fit with LeBron and the rest of the roster, they could have had a much better season despite the injuries and without giving up their long term cap space.

Problem is, now players on the outside are questioning the stability of the Laker management team because of who they choose to sign and how they handled the AD drama.

There is a good chance that will negatively impact their ability to get players in the future.

I don't think who the 1 year guys are matters at all. Even with better 1 year guys (assuming there were any available) they still aren't making the playoffs with the injuries they had.

As I pointed out, guys who are willing to take 1 year deals, typically don't have a lot other options and guys who have other options, typically don't want 1 year deals unless there is a chance at a title. Which wasn't going to be the case this year.

I think that if the Lakers had landed a 2nd max guy, the rest of the roster would look a good bit different and wouldn't have nearly as many 1 year guys. If it did, they'd likely be better ones because now they'd be going to a team with at least a punchers chance at a title.

The AD drama would have presented the same obstacle no matter who the other 1 year guys were because it ruined the teams chemistry and trust. It also exposed the inexperience of the Lakers FO.

Magic and the Lakers can easily explain away the roster they put around Lebron by pointing out lack of options and punting the cap space to this off-season. Especially since Lebron obviously was ok with who they signed (even if it was for a lack of better options).

What will be much harder, imo, is explaining away the AD drama. Which was going to be much harder to explain away, regardless of who made up the rest of the roster.

 

[dtgold88]

When you have three starters out 21 games, there are very few teams that can survive it - The Lakers weren't one of them and again you have missed the point. This team didn't miss the playoffs because of mismanagement or poor coaching - they missed the playoffs because of too many injuries. Some deeper teams may very well hang on enough to make the playoffs and get healthy again - But no team is going to missed two of their starters for the rest of the season and then win a championship -you act as if making the playoffs and then winning championships without two or three of your best players is normal and to be expected - It's not

You can keep ignoring this but the Bulls missed maybe the best player ever the entire season. Not 20 games. They also missed their next 3 best from 7-10 games and centers out 50 games.

They won 55.

 

[dtgold88]

Except that's not true - the Lakers were in playoff contention until after the injuries -

They were....a whopping few games from the 10 seed. sure if they had zero injuries maybe they stay in the 5-8 range. But what team has no injuries?

 

[dtgold88]

Here's the problem I have with the "better roster management" argument.

Once the Lakers didn't land a 2nd max player, they were always going to go with a bunch of 1 year placeholders to preserve cap space.

It didn't/doesn't matter who those players were since it was/is unlikely that they would be on the team past this one season.

We also don't know who they talked to and who was willing to come in on 1 year deals. Players who take those kinds of deals, typically don't have a lot of other options. Players with other options, typically aren't looking for 1 year deals.

Pretty much everyone said before the season started that any significant injuries, especially if one of them was Lebron, would pretty much end any chance they had at the playoffs.

People want to pile on and act surprised that this team isn't making the playoffs when, even if they stayed healthy, there was always the possibility that they wouldn't have made it. This was never the roster that they were going to try to win a title with. The only real surprise, imo, was how well they were playing before the injuries hit.

Could they have put better pieces around Lebron? Maybe. Maybe even probably. It's certainly possible that once they knew that a 2nd guy wasn't coming, they just decided to sign whoever they could as quickly as they could so they could move on and start planning for next year.

Also, considering how Lebron's teams have typically performed when he has missed games and that they missed out on the 2nd max guy, it seems unlikely that they would have made the playoffs even with a more "Lebron-friendly" roster. Especially in the West.

This is fair but with a 6-year head start, one would think they could add Lebron and not have roughly the same record they did without him. More should have been done to have been able to find a max star....or keep their best player in Randle who might not be a max player, but seems like a borderline all star.

 

[tlance]

I don't think who the 1 year guys are matters at all. Even with better 1 year guys (assuming there were any available) they still aren't making the playoffs with the injuries they had.

As I pointed out, guys who are willing to take 1 year deals, typically don't have a lot other options and guys who have other options, typically don't want 1 year deals unless there is a chance at a title. Which wasn't going to be the case this year.

I think that if the Lakers had landed a 2nd max guy, the rest of the roster would look a good bit different and wouldn't have nearly as many 1 year guys. If it did, they'd likely be better ones because now they'd be going to a team with at least a punchers chance at a title.

The AD drama would have presented the same obstacle no matter who the other 1 year guys were because it ruined the teams chemistry and trust. It also exposed the inexperience of the Lakers FO.

Magic and the Lakers can easily explain away the roster they put around Lebron by pointing out lack of options and punting the cap space to this off-season. Especially since Lebron obviously was ok with who they signed (even if it was for a lack of better options).

What will be much harder, imo, is explaining away the AD drama. Which was going to be much harder to explain away, regardless of who made up the rest of the roster.

I think it matters a lot.

The Lakers are basically tanking now.

Say they sign Brook Lopez, McGee and a shooter instead of the garbage they got.

How many games does that help them improve in the standings? 4? 5? 8?

I don't know. It is hard to guess what better chemistry would mean for this squad. But if they were better in the win column at the allstar break, perhaps the AD saga goes down differently. Perhaps everything else that happened since plays out in a more positive direction.

I am not saying they would have made the playoffs for sure, but they wouldn't be the punchline of jokes like they are now. And that matters for prospective FAs and how they view the Laker organization.

While those individuals won't be on the team next year, there absolutely could be a trickle down affect that dooms the LBJ tenure before it really begins.

 

[trojanfan12]

This is fair but with a 6-year head start, one would think they could add Lebron and not have roughly the same record they did without him. More should have been done to have been able to find a max star....

If Jeanie, Magic and Pelinka had been running things for the past 6 years, you might have a point.

When they made the trade to bring in Dwight and Nash, they gave up a lot of assets.

When Dwight left and Nash couldn't play anymore, they didn't have much way to improve the team, especially with Kobe coming off of a blown out Achilles.

Then, Short Buss gave ridiculous contracts to Mozgov and Deng which killed much of their cap space.

Basically, everything they've done since then has been about trying to clean up the mess that Short Buss made just to try to get some assets with some kind of value.

Magic and Pelinka have had all of 1 off-season to bring in a max star and they did. Now, they have to find a way to bring in another one or go for a couple of near max guys and a couple of better role players.

 

[trojanfan12]

I think it matters a lot.

The Lakers are basically tanking now.

Say they sign Brook Lopez, McGee and a shooter instead of the garbage they got.

How many games does that help them improve in the standings? 4? 5? 8?

I don't know. It is hard to guess what better chemistry would mean for this squad. But if they were better in the win column at the allstar break, perhaps the AD saga goes down differently. Perhaps everything else that happened since plays out in a more positive direction.

I am not saying they would have made the playoffs for sure, but they wouldn't be the punchline of jokes like they are now. And that matters for prospective FAs and how they view the Laker organization.

While those individuals won't be on the team next year, there absolutely could be a trickle down affect that dooms the LBJ tenure before it really begins.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

It's the Lakers, people would make them the butt of jokes anyway just because it's an opportunity to get their shots in before they eventually get things right.

I doubt the AD thing goes down any differently because from the looks of it, the Pels were upset about Lebron and Rich Paul trying to bully them. The Lakers having a different roster doesn't change that.

Also, we've seen how rosters that "fit better with Lebron" perform when Lebron is removed from the equation and it's not any better than this "non-Lebron fitting" roster performed.

I don't think FA's are concerned with players who aren't going to be there anyway. If anything dooms Lebron's tenure with the Lakers, it will be the AD drama, not guys who weren't going to be there past this season anyway.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

You can keep ignoring this but the Bulls missed maybe the best player ever the entire season. Not 20 games. They also missed their next 3 best from 7-10 games and centers out 50 games.

They won 55.

I was checking with a friend of mine who watched those games - very clearly the Chicago Bulls did not have significant players that missed that many games and they never had a really good center - so whoever it was that missed a lot - He was a scrub, and yes very clearly the Bulls made the playoffs and came close without their best ONE PLAYER NAMED MICHAEL JORDAN. That still is a poor comparison to the Lakers missing their THREE BEST PLAYERS and be mindful that when Michael Jordan(many thought it was his fault that his father was killed due to gambling debt) Left the game - He was replaced with a fairly decent forward -Not saying that was the same as Jordan, but it was still a far cry from the Lakers who lost their THREE BEST PLAYERS and NO ONE TO REPLACE THEM

 

[True Lakers Fan]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

It's the Lakers, people would make them the butt of jokes anyway just because it's an opportunity to get their shots in before they eventually get things right.

I doubt the AD thing goes down any differently because from the looks of it, the Pels were upset about Lebron and Rich Paul trying to bully them. The Lakers having a different roster doesn't change that.

Also, we've seen how rosters that "fit better with Lebron" perform when Lebron is removed from the equation and it's not any better than this "non-Lebron fitting" roster performed.

I don't think FA's are concerned with players who aren't going to be there anyway. If anything dooms Lebron's tenure with the Lakers, it will be the AD drama, not guys who weren't going to be there past this season anyway.

If the Anthony Davis fiasco dooms the LeBron tenure - then I am going to blame LeBron and his agent - but I still say that until the injuries - the Lakers were in playoff position and contention. It was not until the Lakers had lost LeBron, Lonzo Ball, Brandon Ingram and Rajon Rondo that they spiraled downward out of control. Without LeBron only - they started losing more games, but it would have been more manageable

 

[tlance]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

It's the Lakers, people would make them the butt of jokes anyway just because it's an opportunity to get their shots in before they eventually get things right.

I doubt the AD thing goes down any differently because from the looks of it, the Pels were upset about Lebron and Rich Paul trying to bully them. The Lakers having a different roster doesn't change that.

Also, we've seen how rosters that "fit better with Lebron" perform when Lebron is removed from the equation and it's not any better than this "non-Lebron fitting" roster performed.

I don't think FA's are concerned with players who aren't going to be there anyway. If anything dooms Lebron's tenure with the Lakers, it will be the AD drama, not guys who weren't going to be there past this season anyway.

Fair enough.

IMO, how the AD deal could have gone down differently would have been if the Laker FO had expressed interest, but put the ball in the Pelicans court to make the offer.

That way, you don't risk pissing off your entire roster by offering them in trade for a player who isn't really available anyway. Because as we all said on here, the Pelicans were always going to wait until the summer to trade Davis.

If the Pelicans had any desire to execute a trade with the Lakers, they would have made an offer.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

This is fair but with a 6-year head start, one would think they could add Lebron and not have roughly the same record they did without him. More should have been done to have been able to find a max star....or keep their best player in Randle who might not be a max player, but seems like a borderline all star.

The Lakers would have had a better record with LeBron all 82 games - considering that LeBron has been injury free his entire career with the exception of a few here and there, No one expected him to go down. Then the Lakers Lost Rondo, Lonzo Ball, and Ingram in that same period. If LeBron had been the only one injured, who knows for sure, but one should think they could have done better. A stronger team may have come up stronger in spite of that, but this young Lakers team was not built to compensate for injuries. They can make up for the absence of no depth, but playing the starts longer, but then you have to expect the injuries. Get one really good elite player for LeBron as a playmate, that should help curtail the injuries. But Lonzo Ball and Brandon Ingram are very thin and weak. They need to put some muscles on those thin frames and become men before they can really compete in the NBA - They are still just kids right now