A large section of Lakers’ fans are only concerned about two things: how many losses the team has and how can they attain more of them. We have been over this multiple times, but it bears repeating — the more losses the team has, the better chance they have of keeping their draft pick which, in turn, offers a better chance of turning that asset into a cornerstone player who can help catapult the team back into contention sooner.
One way to get to more losses is to make trades that strip the team of some of their better players. The benefit of such deals would go beyond worsening the team — and increasing the odds of the aforementioned draft pick — they would also, hopefully, bring in even more assets that could help accelerate the current rebuild. Flip rotation player X for a draft pick; unload player Y for a young player on a rookie scale contract, is how this logic goes.
Whether or not you agree with the rooting for losses part of this story, the concept of dealing players for assets who can better help in the future is sound and a tried and true way of doing business in this league. This season, it has already started. The Denver Nuggets traded Timofey Mozgov to the Cavs for two future first round draft picks. The Celtics have been very active, first trading Rajon Rondo to the Mavs for draft picks and then off-loading players received in that deal (and others) to the Suns and Clippers for even more picks.
Again, this is not new. The question Lakers’ fans have, however, is when will they join the party? I mean, the Lakers may be a bad team, but they have some useful players who other teams might want, right? Right? Honestly, I’m not so sure.
Questioning more and more what type of value some of the Lakers' assets have on the trade market. Also whether the FO might overvalue them.
— Darius Soriano (@forumbluegold) January 20, 2015
That was me, musing on twitter earlier. It’s something I’ve been thinking about a fair amount lately, especially as the deadline for which Jordan Hill became tradable approached and passed (January 15th). The thought has long been that the Lakers, who were only playoff contenders in the world where everything went right for them and a lot of things went wrong for many other Western Conference teams, would start to sell off assets once the reality set in that they really were not going to make the playoffs this season.
However, in order to be a seller another team has to be willing to buy what you are offering. And, as I noted above, I’m wondering of opposing front offices really value the Lakers’ assets the way some fans might or even how much the Lakers’ front office might. With that in mind, here are a few thoughts on 3 key players mentioned most when discussing potential trades with a focus on differences in their perceived value and what the alternative view might be:
1. Jordan Hill: We all know that Hill is. He remains one of the better rate rebounders in the league, especially on the offensive glass. He can finish well enough inside, has shown flashes of being able to hit the mid-range jumper, and can bring energy and hustle in bursts. He makes $9 million dollars this year and has a team option for next year. Hill could certainly help a playoff team as a third big who, like, say, Taj Gibson of the Bulls, can do good work on the glass provide some decent defense (well below Taj’s standard, here), and even close some games if his jumper is falling and he’s got enough in the tank to play out the stretch hard.
In saying this, though, Hill’s contract complicates any trade. Due to the fact that he loses his Bird Rights if dealt, Hill has to agree to any trade he’s a part of. The only way to remove this de-facto no trade clause is if the Lakers pick up his team option before trading him. Said another way, if you want to deal Hill you either need his permission or you need to guarantee his full $9 million salary for next season. Forgetting for a moment whether you think Hill is worth that much money, most teams want one of two things from a player they are trading for: a guy who is on an expiring contract or a player with multiple years on his contract*. Hill is neither of those things. And, honestly, I think that might really affect his value on the trade market.
2. Jeremy Lin: I don’t necessarily think Lin has gotten the fairest shake in L.A. He’s clearly a better player than Ronnie Price, but lost his starting job for a quarter of the season and is one of the few players who is consistently negatively called out by his head coach. Even when he’s played well, he’s not always closed games and there has been more than one occasion where you have to wonder if the coach simply doesn’t like him (the latest being where Scott intimated he thought Jeremy was soft). When it comes right down to it, Lin should have been starting since day one and likely should have been even more encouraged than he was — and I mean this via actual X’s and O’s and not just talk — to take control of the offense by running more pick and rolls and pushing the pace as much as possible. He is a good player — better than he’s shown, I think — but he has clearly not been given much of the royal jelly that could, potentially, bring out the best in him.
In saying all that, when evaluating Lin’s potential trade value, two things go against him. The first is his contract. Lin’s cap figure is $8.3 million, but he is actually being paid almost $15 million this season. That salary quirk is how the Rockets were able to pry him loose from the Knicks in free agency and is also a reason why the Rockets had to sweeten their offer to the Lakers with a first round pick in the trade that sent him to Los Angeles this past July. It’s what will also complicate any trade because any team that trades for him will need to be ready to fork over heftier pay checks than his cap hit would imply. For a team like the Lakers (who print money) that’s not a problem. But if you’re a team who doesn’t swim in profits, that might be an issue.
Second, Lin plays the deepest position in the league and isn’t going to be a better option than the starting point guards a lot of teams already have. This will be especially true when you’re talking about a contending team. So, when you trade for Lin, the odds are you are trading for a backup. In theory, this is fine — he’d be a damn good back up for a lot of teams. But when combining what his salary is with what role he’s likely to play that changes the equation. If you’re a contending team, do you trade a real asset for the right to pay a back up point guard — even a potentially really good one — $7 million over the second half of the season?
3. Ed Davis. First off, I know what you’re thinking. We don’t want to trade Ed Davis! He’s cheap! He’s productive!! We want Davis back next year!!! I get that. But for the purpose of evaluating trade assets, it would seem that Davis is one of the better ones the Lakers have. After all, he’s cheap and productive. And while he has some holes in his game, his value on the floor goes well beyond what he’s being paid. This is someone who the team should be able to get something for! Right? #wellactually…
As a minimum salaried player, Davis has zero function as a stand alone trade asset. The only type of contract you can trade him for is another minimum salaried player or a player on a late first round or second round rookie scale contract. These aren’t players who are likely to be as good or valuable to the Lakers as a future piece than Davis is. This, of course, leads to the idea of someone trading a draft pick for Davis. The issue there, however, is that Davis has a player option for his contract next year and will almost surely not exercise it in order to become a free agent. After the year he’s having, Davis could likely fetch the full mid-level exception on the open market and maybe even more than that. If you’re a team trading for him, do you really surrender a first round pick for a half season of Ed Davis and the right to compete for him in free agency come July?
This might seem like I’m down on the Lakers’ trade assets. I am not. I think Hill, Lin, or Davis could help several teams out there. Without getting into details or speculating, I have hopped on the trade machine and found new homes for all of them where I think they would make the type of impact that could help their new teams make deeper playoff runs. However, the reality is that trades in this league happen for a variety of reasons but often don’t happen for even more of them. And while the Lakers’ assets may be good ones, there are real barriers that could hold them up.
In other words, you may want the Lakers to make a deal (or more) before the February deadline. They may even want to make one. By many accounts, they actually have already been trying to. But, if nothing actually goes down, that shouldn’t be a surprise.
*It might seem counter-intuitive to think teams want players with long term deals, but a deal like Hill’s — where he can be a free agent next summer — can often be a headache for a team. Next summer Hill will be a free agent and whatever team that has him has to think about whether they want to invest in him further or not. If it’s not, they need to consider trading him again or risk having him walk in free agency for nothing. If you let him walk, you just surrendered real assets in a trade for the right to pay a player $9 million and then have him go away with no return. That’s not what we call getting value.
Anonymous says
Good post, agree with those nuances that make those three “assets” less valuable to other teams. As for Scott not liking Lin, It honestly sometimes feels like they’re trying to put bad lineups out there. Eh, they’re all wins this year, I guess.
T. Rogers says
So the Lakers front office effectively gave Jordan HIll a no trade clause. Jordan Hill of all players. Yet, one of the reasons Pau Gasol turned down more money from the Lakers last summer is they refused to give him a no trade clause. So Hill basically got what Pau Gasol couldn’t get. And mind you we’re only talking about a two year contract. Gasol wasn’t good enough for it. Yet, the team needs Hill’s blessing to trade him without picking up his option. You can’t make this stuff up! I’m going to stop this comment right here. I don’t want Darius to delete this post due to the foul language I really want to use right now.
rr says
I had always wondered about trading Hill with his team option but had never researched it, so I am glad I know. Needless to say, I don’t like it from the Lakers’ POV.
Ko says
Wow! Great analysis. So what your saying us Jimmy and Mitchy are more clueless then we thought. Boston, New York and Philly are miles ahead of the Laker “brain trust?”. And this team has very few viable assets plus a $24 million player playing once a week( at $290,000 a game) and another trying out for soccer teams and playing golf at $9 million.
If this was a TV Show (Days of a wasted life) or the Staples Hillbillies or Buss Dynasty without beards, no one would buy it. Except Time Warner that is!
Darius Soriano says
T Rogers,
It’s actually not that rare. Wes Johnson is in the same situation this year. As was Xavier Henry before he was waived. It’s a product of the CBA and related to a players’ Bird Rights. Also, it’s not quite the same as what Pau was reportedly asking for.
I’d add that I’d imagine if the Lakers really want to trade Hill, they’ll wirk to find a suitor who will okay his option being picked up. But, as I wrote, I do think that changes his value. For a variety of reasons…
TheArmoTrader says
There’s another POV with regards to Jordan Hill’s team option.
Instead of picking up his team option to get around his no-trade clause, the Lakers could threaten to not pick up his team option if he doesn’t agree to the trade.
Obviously this isn’t ideal, as they’ll lose Hill without any asset coming back in return. But it is one more hand they can deal.
If Hill threatens to veto, then the Lakers go ahead and threaten to not pick up his team option this year.
How does that work to LA’s advantage? Hill probably doesn’t make $9M on the open market. He’ll probably recoup that money over signing a 2 or 3 year deal, but he’d be essentially risking leaving a few million on the table (esp. with the cap jumping in 2016 – which I’d think is the ideal time to hit FA and ink a long-term deal).
Again, LA probably wouldn’t want to play that card, because it can harm future negotiations with that agent*.
But if push comes to shove, that option is on the table IMO.
(While Hill’s agent doesn’t represent many NBA players – only 4 with the most notable player being either Hill or Amir Johnson…..we probably don’t want to ruin any future potential relationships…)
sunny says
i agree with you on Lin and Hill but love Ed Davis.Kobe deserves one more chance check http://www.kobebryant.ca
Fort Worth Concrete says
I don’t see the Lakers being able to leverage any assets until next year. That’s part of the problem with doing the rebuild one year at a time philosophy. Hard not to stink, develop young talent, compete, compile draft picks, and think of the now and the future at the same time.
tankyou says
@sunny, one more chance for what, a title?! IF you think they can throw together a team in one year with what’s on the market and contend for a championship you must be drinking the special type of Kool-Aid. At best they could sign some minor “big names” next year and maybe win 10 more games than this year and still miss the playoffs. Also, Kobe isn’t playing much anymore, he will be resting fairly often, and next year best case scenario we see what we have seen from Kobe this year. Kobe plays an occasional great game, a couple stinkers, and a goodly amount of DNP–rest/fatigue.
Completely agree with the asset assessment of Darius’s article. The only thing I would say, is that LIn expires, Davis may sign elsewhere and Hill likely will have less trade value next year, so I would say that we will have less trade assets next year.
Legend says
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/18/pau-gasol-says-lakers-offered-him-no-trade-clause-in-contract-negotiations/
T Rogers Pau was offered a no trade clause by Lakers last summer. He left because Chicago has a better foundation and the Lakers look to be a franchise with no direction
Thomas Rickard says
Usually I agree with what you write, however I think you’re wrong about Lin, outside of a few games he’s been mediocre at best, even if he didn’t have the ballon payment I don’t think you could find a trade for him, there’s a reason why he’s been on so many teams, even coming off the bench his numbers haven’t been great, if you have numbers that show him being in the top 40 pg I’d love to see them, I see him as a 15mil failure, will be vary interesting to see what happens to him next year.
will says
I would imagine that a team who like J.Hill could offer 4 years 24 mil which is a pay cut from his option year but obviously more security in years. Hill would go along with that…I would think?
BigCitySid says
-Great post D.
-@ Ko, couldn’t agree w/ you more. It’s the very reason why for the 1st time in my 49 years as a Laker fan I have absolutely no faith, no positive expectations from their front office…it’s all been reduced to hope. These guys continue to be on the negative side of every deal they make & contract they create or acquire pertaining to on court talent & value.
– Pertaining to Lin, when he was acquired the questions had to be how well would he work w/ a ball dominant two guard? Would Kobe allow him to run the offense?
– Hoping the Lakers can find another team as desperate or clueless as they are as a trading partner.
Craig W. says
I really am tired of the concept that if a good choice is made the front office ‘lucked into it’ and if things don’t turn out they are ‘clueless morons’.
It was clear Pau was going to leave the organization, regardless what they offered him. Whether he was worth the market price for an organization that had questionable chances at the playoffs is another question entirely. Hill was the ‘only’ big man the Lakers were likely to be able to sign and, by structuring the contract the way they did, they quickly took him off the market and allowed for other plans to go forward. I am unapologetically in the camp that doesn’t want the Lakers to be the 76ers West.
For all the basketball related criticisms, Swaggy P is a draw in Los Angeles and Kobe’s status was an unknown. The Lakers simply cannot put a product on the floor at Staples without someone who entertains – Swaggy P does that. His contract spans the Kobe era and can – IMO – be more easily unloaded after the new TV contract kicks in.
Kobe’s contract fits in the ‘Swaggy P’ mode, except that he is a draw wherever the Lakers play. Jeannie Buss is also correct that the difference between $15M and $24M won’t be able to bring in any great players over the next two years – Kobe was the best business value for the money and the Lakers got the additional benefit of being viewed as taking care of their own. This last was even more necessary with the Pau situation obviously developing. I do have issues with how the Lakers pick coaches, but that is another discussion entirely.
T. Rogers says
Apologies to all. I think I was channeling my inner KO! Darius’ layout of the team’s assets got me to thinking about just how far we need to go. But that’s not on Darius. He’s calling it what it is. Good job as usual.
Ko says
Really Craig? How many excuses can one make for the worst team in LA Laker history? Unless you think the assists they acquired off season of Boozer and Lin(their teams paid them to go away) and getting nothing for Dwighr, Pau and Kamen is brillent.
Help me!
J C says
Interesting and informative write-up by Darius.
Some of these nuances may indeed delay or simply prohibit these players’ movements.
In fact I’d surmise there may be additional sorts of things at play that we can’t deduce from afar or pertaining to mathematics. Players’ personalities and relationships with management and their teammates probably (or should) also play a part. Although to this team, maybe less so, since this FO seemed particularly oblivious to the compounded results of losing players like Pau.
Since Pau’s been mentioned here, it bears repeating and reflection on how sorely he’s missed: by fans, by Kobe, and by the team on the court. Kobe and Pau were the two key pieces on a championship team. Judging from Pau’s recent play in Chicago it’s clear he had some nice fuel left in the tank.
For example: would the Spurs FO have treated a player like Pau differently?
Or would they have constantly, annually, dangled him, publicly, as trade bait?
One may debate the ‘blessing in disguise’ of losing Dwight’s services, but consistently undervaluing Pau and allowing Dantoni to sully Pau’s reputation and sour his taste for Lakerhood was IMO terribly negligent on the part of the Laker FO. Pau’s departure cannot be blamed on Kobe. Their final offer to him was clearly too ‘little too late’ and (along with the amount of Kobe’s contract) stands to me as the most compelling proof so far of their seemingly/relatively newfound incompetence.
On the asset front, it seems clear that the acquisition of Tarik Black implies plans to move either Hill or Davis.
If all moves prove impossible for reasons such as Darius outlines, it validates further the ineffectiveness of the strategies currently being fruitlessly applied.
Stuart says
Great — so because each of the more marketable Lakers assets (Hill, Lin and Davis) come with asterisks there is a very good chance that if moved the Lakers won’t get full value for any of them. The odds of Davis and Lin leaving this summer on their own just went up. It’s likely Hill’s option is picked up as the Lakers’ roll cap space forward.
Like so many of you I am dumbfounded that there seems to be so little upside in any aspect of our current Lakers. How can Danny Ainge squeeze draft picks out of every move (I believe the Celtics have 19 picks over the next 4 years) yet the Lakers, seemingly by design, prefer players to walk out the door receiving nothing in return?
I think this is why folks get so frustrated by our FO. They make decisions which are so out of place with how any other team operates. I understand that the Lakers are a cash machine – it feels like this fact allows the FO to play by their own rules. They act like they are the smartest person in the room and that they know something that no one else knows. I certainly hope that is the case.
Archon says
I also disagree with Darius about Jeremy Lin. He isn’t a good player, he’s an average player with real basketball flaws playing a position that’s currently the deepest it’s ever been. He would be fine in a D’Antoni system where the only player making decisions is the PG, but we already know that system can make almost any NBA point guard look good (see Kendall Marshall last year).
So unless the Lakers are prepared to take back a bad contract they will not get anything for Lin.
rr says
Kobe’s status was an unknown.
—
We knew the following:
1. He would be 36 years old when play started.
2. He has enormous mileage.
3. He was coming off two serious leg injuries.
4. Buss and Kupchak have repeatedly emphasized the importance of “financial flexibility.”
5. The Lakers need to build the roster and had no realistic hope of contention at the time the deal was signed.
In spite of these things, the FO chose to make KB the highest-paid player in the NBA for his age-36 and age-37 seasons.
rr says
it’s all been reduced to hope
—
Indeed. I noted this yesterday. You and I disagree a lot, but I am right with you on this.
Oldtimer says
The way I look at it Darius, we have three additional players I consider as trading chips but I would not trade them for anybody because they are our future assets. They are: Julius Randle, Jordan Clarkson and Swaggy P. These players would surely help any team especially if their franchise player would surely test the market at the end of the season.
(edited for trade speculation)
Biggest mistake Lakers made, they did not trade Dwight H before he turned around at the Lakers, awfully bad read.
Hill is overprice at 9M and a cap wastage. Lin’s contract ends by April, a team who needs to unload player contracts would be interested for Lin and nothing else. IMO, no team will take him for 15M whose offense is inconsistent with lame defense but he is a good 2nd stringer PG. Based on those show card, he is good for 3-5M only.
Todd says
Craig W: you sound like my daughter’s Kindergarten teacher – “you get what you get and don’t throw a fit.” Are you a Buss family friend?
I won’t say all, but most organizations try to get better every year. For the past two years the Lakers have intentionally designed a team to tread water. Not trying to win and not trying to be awful — in a hard cap league that is the prescription for sustained mediocrity.
These tough times are not the product of any natural cycle. Fans would understand that more than the FO gives them credit for. No, our downturn is a result of Jim’s hubris. While the veto was wrong the team has continued to shoot itself in the foot at every turn (Nash trade, Mike Brown, MDA, DHoward leaving, Kobe’s extension, failing to get a higher pick last year, Pau leaving, pursuing Lebron & Melo versus other building block FAs, signing Young to a contract through his age 33 season, hiring Scott). Not every decision is going to be a winner and no one should argue otherwise. However, Jim has squandered virtually every asset the franchise possessed and has left the Lakers with the bleakest outlook of any team in the league.
As a lawyer we learned the law by case analysis. Because the cases were all about mistakes and legal messes, one professor likened this to ‘learning to drive by watching films of car accidents.’ I think of that line when I look at the Lakers — they are a painful comedy of errors.
Craig W. says
rr,
All the things you say are correct. Therefore – IMO – the front office decided that having Kobe was much better than the alternative. IMO – again – the alternative looked much more like the 76ers, than it did the Thunder or 2008 Celtics.
If you follow my point-of-view, then you could easily come to the decision to sign Kobe for a ‘discount’, but still pay him more than others in the NBA. Simply put, he brings more people to the game than anyone not named Lebron. For the fanatic fan this seems to be a dumb reason, but for a businessman, this is a very plausible alternative.
The Lakers were likely to be bad for a few years. It is important to keep the franchise name in the news – any news – over that period of time. Kobe certainly has done that. Again – that extra money was not likely to be used on any player who would make a difference to the Lakers’ future. We needed more than the difference between $15M and $24M.
Vasheed says
I believe the Lakers should make a few trades. There are a few ways to go about this in general. The most obvious is getting Draft Picks which may require also taking back an expiring contract. Other options would include getting rookies who are currently playing but are underutilized. The general idea is to get younger, expect to lose more and thereby keep their draft pick for this year. Another way to go about this is to trade expiring contracts for players who have longer contracts. The key with this is that the Lakers cannot afford to take on players who are overpaid for their production. This must be avoided at all costs. The only teams who can afford to overpay are teams who are in contention. Where overpaying a player or two is what is required to get them over the hump to be a title contender before their window of opportunity closes.
Hill and to a lesser extent Lin are these good but overpaid players who have value to a team who is trying to win now. The appropriate trade partners and size of their contracts make a deal somewhat difficult. I do fear the Lakers may over value their assets and not accept a deal even though no other is present. This happened with Gasol. The Lakers where unwilling to move him for what they considered inadequate compensation and as result got nothing instead which was even worse.
Then there are guys like Davis and to a lesser extent Sacre, who don’t have big contracts offer a precious commodity of a big body in the paint. Davis plays far better then his contract size. Small contracts like this are fairly easy for anothe tema in contention to absorb without major changes to their roster. The only real question is just how much compensation is fair for a rental. I would see Davis worth at least a late 1st round pick and Sacre a 2nd round pick. I could throw in a few other names.
Randle is probably the Lakers best trade chip. I know a lot fans would consider him all but untouchable and I fear the F.O. shares that opinion. I believe he has an upside to become the next David Lee which is pretty good but I believe he is far riskier then usually put forth. He is also the greatest double double machine from college since Michael Beasly and the most talented big man with injury issues since Greg Oden. To get something of great value you often have to give up something of value. Randle is that piece who could be moved o his own or packaged with a guy like Nash to bring in a bigger contract guy.
I believed before the season started the Lakers should have taken on a number of bad 1 year contracts while pulling in some draft picks. This would have restocked their young talent pool while staffing their line up with guys I figured would do at least as good as the team is doing now. Instead they waited on Anthony and barely got Lin plus a pick before the big free agent frenzy was over. A situation they were posied to take advantage of. I also believed they could have snagged a kay player or two that would have fleshed out their starting line up. It should be noted Gasol waited to leave the Lakers until after Mitch had some time to possibly fix the roster up. When the F.O. failed in this Gasol left.
I believe the Lakers woes are fixable. I believe after the Kwame trade it has become expected that the miracle trade will emerge. I would encourage the F.O. to start looking at making a whole starting line up a whole roster before getting holed down looking for the heir apparent to Kobe.
Oldtimer says
Here is what I think about Kobe, if he has good teammates and had a chance of making it to the playoffs and could possibly compete for his 6th ring, he will play and die on the basketball court. That is just how competitive Kobe is, ever since we have known him from 1995 to present. However, if it is a waste of time, tanking is in the air, then he becomes play dumb Kobe who would play around FO, Coach and the fans as though he could no longer do it.
What made me think of that? You saw how competitive Kobe was when he injured his Achilles heel. He knows at that time, the team has the chance to make noise in the playoffs if his injury was sustainable; Secondly, when Lakers refused to change the scrubs in ’07, he ranted against FO until he was assured by Dr. Buss and Mitch of changes in the horizon. He can create waves and get to his objective which resulted to three additional Finals after that rant. Thirdly. when he was embroiled with the Denver case and feuding with Shaq in ’04, he gave the Lakers an ultimatum that he is willing to bolt out and join the Clippers if no changes made on the team.
Under Jimbo, he mellowed after getting $ 48M, no need to create waves nor rant but just go with the flow and run away with his money following the cue of equally wily Nash. There is no more motivation to play, no more personal goals to achieve and he thinks lowly of his teammates but would not want to insult them ad infinitum.
I think he is also a Mamba when it comes to negotiations, openly or psychologically. Therefore, if Lakers continue to rebuild with bad players on hand or with newbies who’ll be acclimatizing to NBA, we will see a dormant Kobe in 2015 who would fool all of us that he is too old, too slow and could no longer wiggle like a Mamba. he will push the on-and-off switch to his advantage.
R says
And of course the Lakers have few trade assets because of all the players they let walk for absolutely nothing.
“it’s all been reduced to hope” And as we all know, hope is not a strategy (see above).
Craig W. says
Todd,
I’m not going to get into the coaching moves – IMO – the Lakers have messed that up. And I don’t support the revisionist history that we should have hired Phil Jackson for the remainder of the year – IMO – that is all we were going to get him for, in the best case scenario.
However, the Dwight Howard and Steve Nash moves would have been made by most of the successful NBA franchises and I don’t call them a failure – except in hindsight. They just didn’t work out.
The Kobe thing I answered above. I actually agree with the front office on this.
Swaggy P was signed for entertainment purposes – IMO – and does not represent a bad investment there.
I disagree – there is a cycle for most franchises (San Antonio’s downside is likely not far off). In that vein, I am not sure we should have resigned Pau for this season. The only possible alternative would be to have traded him. Darius has quite eloquently stated some issues with evaluating players value to others and Pau wasn’t exactly being traded at the top of his market – that was the Chris Paul trade.
I don’t want to sing any praises for our front office, but I am not ready to bury them in Donald Sterling effigy either.
J C says
Todd
Awesome ‘car accident’ analogy.
And a sobering one.
Craig
Agree with your business ‘plausibility’ point.
However, I think the cumulative affect of the opportunity cost difference between 15 and 24 mil, when combined w the loss of Pau, (and even Dwight) has been exponential.
I have a more emphatic comment regarding Pau in mod.
Lil Pau says
Meanwhile, Forbes just valued the Lakers at 2.6B, and stated that, on average, NBA teams increased in value 76 percent in the last year alone! In one year! This is why Ko’s failed business / bankruptcy analogies aren’t quite accurate
Great post, Darius, but I would add two points re Lin:
1. I think he was mostly taken because of the first round pick that came with him, plus perhaps ancillary revenue he brings for non-basketball reasons. But mostly the pick. It was a good move by the Lakers, get a decent player and a pick, not many of those to celebrate lately.
2. Although he is clearly our best PG, Lin is ball dominant and therefore I think makes sense off the bench (ie, not playing a majority of minutes with Kobe). This does not mean I accept that Price gets as many minutes as he does… Lin has surprised me in good and bad ways– he’s a worse passer than I expected, but a far better attacker/finisher. Maybe he is the anti-Fisher after all
Darius Soriano says
My biggest issue with the Front Office has been their process of hiring coaches (Scott being the latest example) and their process of moving through free agency this past summer after the big name players decided to sign elsewhere. My biggest issue with front office hardliners who consistently slam them as incompetents (mainly Jim Buss) is that they refuse to acknowledge the gray areas of negotiations, the realities of the CBA, or that sometimes things just don’t work out even when the process is good. Basically, the frustration from losing means someone has to be blamed and the easiest target is the front office. Some of that is fair and some of it is just blind complaining.
For example: The process that led to the Chris Paul trade (and subsequent veto) was sound. The complications in dealing a player of Pau’s salary while receiving back some sort of value were real. Dwight Howard leaving isn’t just a “Jim” failure, but a failure of many in the organization to get him on board for the future. There are other examples as well.
There are gray areas here that some simply refuse to acknowledge and, honestly, it’s tiring to read day in and day out. I’m not here to be a front office apologists. Again, if I were in charge, I would have expanded my coaching search to a wider group of candidates, I would have likely pursued at least one mid-level FA (or even Bledsoe who was an upper tier FA but a RFA) with a longer term deal and likely not tied up so much money in Hill/Young. I also would have tried to have a personal conversation with Kobe where I would have tried to sell him on a vision for the next two years with the hope of him taking a bit less money (even in the 15-18 million range would have been better).
So, yeah, I’m happy to point the finger at the front office in some cases. But some of where the Lakers are is just the reality of how the NBA works, the limitations that exist because of the collective bargaining agreement, and the fact that while we sit here on the internet the games and the negotiations and the conversations are done face to face (or over the phone) between actual people with actual emotions that influence decision making. That some forget this (or purposefully ignore it) is baffling to me.
Calvin Chang says
Very good discussion here. Some comments:
I agree with Oldtimer that Kobe has an on and off switch. If the Lakers had a shot at playoffs, Kobe will be focused and playing every game. Since it’s clear playoffs are out of the question, Kobe’s in friendly mode – preserving his miles, playing occasionally to stay in shape and entertain fans. Joking around with opponents while occasionally putting on vintage moves.
Agreed with Archon that Lin is an average PG with flaws. Certainly overpaid at 15M, probably worth 3 to 7M*. There’s an asterisk that comes with Lin because he comes with millions in sponsorship. I remember reading about one Chinese sponsor pulling out from Houston and signing up with LA after Lin was traded. As fans, we just want the team to win. But as a front-office business man, millions in sponsorship and ticket sales matter a lot.
Anonymous says
>My biggest issue with the Front Office has been their process of hiring coaches
> would have likely pursued at least one mid-level FA (or even Bledsoe who was an upper tier FA but a RFA) with a longer term deal
> and likely not tied up so much money in Hill/Young.
>I also would have tried to have a personal conversation with Kobe where I would have tried to sell him on a vision for the next two years with the hope of him taking a bit less money (even in the 15-18 million range would have been better).
——-
That is a list of pretty significant complaints.
I agree with you about the Paul stuff, most of the Nash stuff, and a part of the Howard stuff. But if they were going to let MDA go anyway, I think they should have fired him during Howard’s FA if there was any chance, as Dave McMenamin suggested, that it might change Howard’s mind. Most of my issues with the FO revolve around recent moves.
The FO is more than just an easy target. They are the ones who run the team. Scott is actually an easier target than the FO since we see him every night. You have been pretty tough on Scott on Twitter, but the FO should have known exactly what they were getting when they brought him in, and they interviewed him three times. Also, when Phil left, you put up a post saying that it was Jim Buss’ time to lead. How is he doing so far?
Not many people defend the FO that much anymore, but I think if people are going to do it, they should base it in specifics–decisions made that are actually working to improve the product on the floor.
When the Lakers parted ways with D’Antoni, some of his defenders pointed out to the KBros that some of what went down with MDA was unfair. BK said that he agreed with that, but that even it was, the key question is, “What is best for the Lakers?”
So some of the bagging on Buss is unfair. But he has not shown me much that makes me think that he is the best guy to run the Lakers.
Calvin Chang says
The wacky thing about Lin is that he’s got a weird Tebow effect. Objectively speaking, he’s a good PnR PG that would excel in D’Antoni’s system. But so did Kendall Marshall, right? The main difference between Lin and Kendall was Lin was winning while putting up numbers, while Kendall was just putting up numbers. He’s like Tebow – either you believe in him or you don’t.
Calvin Chang says
Agreed with Darius that Ed Davis is the most viable trade chip that the team has. Jordan Hill’s salary and contract situation complicates his trade value, unless a team really, really likes what he brings. But honestly, Hill’s contribution as an energy big can be replaced easily. Hill’s not an elite post player or defender. He’s just an average 6 ft 10 PF, and I think Patrick Patterson, Amir Johnson, Tyler Hansbrough, Haslem, Brandan Wright, Jon Leuer, Thomas Robinson are cheaper alternatives that can more or less play the same role.
Calvin Chang says
One PG that I’d be interested in is CJ McCollum from the Blazers. In the games I’ve seen of CJ, he seems to be an above-average PG with good range and speed. His potential will never be maximized in Portland behind Dame. But I think CJ is a very good talent that can be had for cheap.
Calvin Chang says
Lil Pau – now we’re talking. As fans, we’re just concerned about winning, stockpiling assets, making trades, criticizing FO for signing high-mileage Kobe to a ridiculous deal, not getting enough talent. Meanwhile, Forbes valued Lakers at more than 2B++. As an owner whose main business is the Lakers, that’s what I’m really after. I don’t have a real-estate or insurance company bringing me income. My money comes from how the Lakers do as a business. That’s a huge factor that we don’t usually think about as fans.
Darius Soriano says
Yes, it’s a significant list! Hahaha. But, even within those things I mentioned, I can see the reasoning for the approach they took on some of them. I mean, if the Lakers primary goal was to maintain as much cap space as possible while still signing somewhat quality players, a contract like Hill’s is how you accomplish that. Plus, they know Hill, have a rapport with him and his agent, and were clearly able to get him to wait on them while they pursued other targets. Those wouldn’t necessarily be givens in a different situation.
Ultimately, though, disagreeing with an approach isn’t the same as saying that approach is stupid or wrong. If I feel it is one of those things, I’d say so. As you noted, I have been hard on Scott because there are key ways I disagree with his approach and the process he’s used/is using. I have said the same things about the process used that led to his hiring. So, yeah.
Oldtimer says
Darius, on Dwight Howards case, if the FO traded him for two players in GS, I believe they deserved the praise as well. However, they misread the motivation of the wishy-washy clown, so they got the blame. If Lakers are on a winning record, well most of the posts here would be favorable but the result is south bound, so Lin, Boozer and roster and Coach are placed in a toaster oven. Just part of the business of being in the FO.
rr says
Meanwhile, Forbes just valued the Lakers at 2.6B, and stated that, on average, NBA teams increased in value 76 percent in the last year alone! In one year!
—
Right. The value is in owning the team, as the recent sales prove.
But even if you believe that Kobe’s presence in and of itself bring the Lakers tens of millions of dollars, they could gave tried to sign him for less, as DS and others have suggested, and/or, as I said at the time, offered him one year, as opposed to two.
Anonymous says
I frankly stopped commenting here because I got tired of the negativity from a very small, but vocal and persistent, set of individuals who refuse to acknowledge any other position other than the FO is “dumb” and/or Phil (and anyone he approves of) are the only ones that can save us. Darius, rr, Craig, Warren, Vasheed, and a number of others are a pleasure to read – regardless of whether or not you agree with their point of view. Others, well, like Darious says above, they get tiring. There’s at least one gentleman I hope once again goes on a self-imposed sabbatical. Rant over.
rr says
They act like they are the smartest person in the room and that they know something that no one else knows.
—
Buss has made a series of decisions that go against mainstream wisdom/fan wants.
1. Hiring Brown instead of Shaw (Denver fans FWIW are mostly unhappy with Shaw).
2. Hiring D’Antoni without allowing Phil to turn down the job publicly, thus making D’Antoni a lightning rod for resentment.
3. Giving Kobe his deal.
4. Going after Carmelo Anthony.
5. Scott is generally seen as a safe, mainstream hire, and in some ways he was. But as I said at the time, much of the younger, digital part of the fanbase–the group with the biggest internet megaphones—was against Scott from the time his name came up.
Hard as it is to see now, there were people here saying that the Lakers had dodged a bullet when the Paul deal was vetoed. That move, too, was in some ways unconventional: trading two bigs for a short PG.
The Nash and Howard deals were very conventional, if risky moves.
BigCitySid says
-The Lakers being valued @ $2.6 billion, and leapfrogging the Knicks into 1st place only makes me feel worst about our current situation. It’s obvious the amount of $$$’s isn’t the Lakers issue, it’s how to use the $$$’s.
-Very few business in any field consistently perform well if the owner(s) continue to “miss the ball”. It’s why some companies are here today and gone tomorrow. A business also must be able to modify, to evolve, least it becomes extinct. Historically Laker ownership/management has been ranked as one of best in pro sports. Currently, (being kind) I’d say they’re in the bottom third in the NBA.
-Looking forward to the Lakers w/ Kobe play the Pelicans w/ Davis tonight. Should be interesting.
Robert says
Darius: Interesting reading with regard to your Front Office comments. As someone who does bash the FO quite a bit, allow me to reply. As I have mentioned before, I am a poker player, so I am quite familiar with doing things the right way and still getting beat by bad luck. I am also familiar with your concept of following someone’s logic while disagreeing with it. One time I lost my whole stack to a guy, only to have my girlfriend sitting behind say “Why did you do that?” (quite funny for everyone else). So why am I boring you with Poker, because there is a lot of luck and a lot of skill just like there is in running an NBA team. On any given hand (game), on any given night (season), anyone can win and anyone can lose. However in the long run, the more skillful players win and the less skillful ones lose. There are guys in poker who have lost for 20 years straight, insisting that it is all bad luck. So the more results you have, the more evidence you have of success or failure. I feel that Jim’s ledger started in 2012, so this is his 4th year at the top. If you want to go with 2013, that is fine so it is his 3rd year. We are all pretty much resigned to the fact that next year will be bad, so on my books that is 5 years – all being sub-par or very bad. This is for the most successful team in sports, and the law of averages would have had us in the Finals twice and winning once during the same period. Small sample? How many years, decades to we need to mortgage before the sample is large enough? And on what basis do we invest those years? The results of the FO major decisions are all bad. The DH debacle, the Mike Brown hire, the MD hire, the Nash trade, the misuse and loss of Pau Gasol, the Kobe contract, and a number of lesser trades/signings like R Sessions, J Kapono, T Murphy, to name a few of my favorites. The supposed successes are all tied to failures. It was genius to get DH, but then we let him walk. It was genius to trade Pau and Lamar, but then it got vetoed and both players left for nothing. Well we got a trade exception for LO but then again that also ultimately resulted in nothing. It was so innovative and out of the box to hire MD, but then we diss Phil, lose DH, and lose Pau. As you state, the process has been flawed throughout: Midnight phone calls to Phil, silly meetings with DH, billboards, the timing and process behind Kobe’s contract, the way B Scott was hired, the way Brian Shaw was dissed, the way the scouts were fired, etc.. Further – Jim brings no charisma to the table. He is not a good speaker, he does not dress well, and he does seem to have any savvy in terms of dealing other people. His relationships with Phil and Kobe to name two big ones. Some of this can be debated, but what can’t be debated are the results. We will mss the playoffs for the second straight year and probably a franchise record third straight next year. 5 years out of the Finals and our 8 year record is in jeopardy. This is all on Jim’s ledger, which would be grounds for the dismissal of most GM’s. The fact that Jeanie (The Boss) has not stepped in either means she is a figure head or she too is culpable. However you are correct – that we do not know all the ins and outs of things, such as how the Trust is structured. This is why I previously wrote about Jerry Buss and Jack Kent Cooke. Two legendary owners, tied in the history of LA, whose franchises have both headed downward after their respective departures (RIP). I do not switch teams when they do poorly and I do not have any “second favorite” teams. The Lakers are mine for life. And right now – the owners are mishandling my team, and I am not looking forward to giving them 3 or 4 more years to learn as they go along. I recognize however that unlike the owners when they make their decisions, I have no choice.
Craig W. says
The Lakers operate in a very constrained environment – a major sport monopoly, with a restrictive CBA.
The Lakers went through an ownership illness and death as a new CBA – designed to hamper teams that operated like the Lakers – was put in place.
The Lakers core was aging superstars.
The Lakers business was and is never been more valuable.
All this turmoil, at a changeover point in the Laker talent cycle, was bound to create problems. Mistakes were made, the league ‘butted in’, assumptions were proved wrong.
This isn’t exactly unexpected – except by those who can only see as far as the next game. A war is rarely won in a single firefight and there are far more ‘rules’ in the modern day NBA.
It is ok to question the front office, but to assume they are stupid and can’t learn says more about the blogger making those statements.
bryan S. says
Darius, Great post. The trade player X for anything (assets) mantra doesn’t pencil out. Craig W., very sensible take. ( I hate the coaching hires as well.) I know we all know we’ve covered much of this ad nauseum, so I generally skip it. But this is a good discussion because of Darius’ nuanced commentary about gray areas. To an asset investor, “gray” is everything. That is where the opportunities are discovered and also where the hidden pitfalls are.
Mitch Kupchak is a very intelligent, shrewd guy and JB isn’t the dumbo he’s made out to be by some. I think they do have a plan based mostly on vast cap room and the desirability of being in the LA market. ( I don’t buy the you can be anywhere now and still get the media exposure/endorsements argument because it’s only true for a couple of guys–and those guys would even be bigger in a top 3 U.S. market.) Given their dearth of assets (natural cycle) it’s a good way forward plus getting a few quality guys with low picks (Randle, this year’s top five pick.)
Vasheed: How many top rookies are out right now with season ending injuries? As usual your comments about Randle veer towards the hyperbolic . . .
Vasheed says
@rr & Darius,
rr refreshed my memory of end of the Phil era. At that time Shaw was the guy who would have represented a continuation of the triangle and basically just carrying on with the current roster construction. The F.O. was very decisive that they wanted to go away from the triangle and as I recall go more back to showtime. I’m not quite sure how Brown fit that direction but then came MDA. The F.O. definitely tried to get guys who fit MDA although the core duo of Gasol and Bryant remained. Up to this point for the most part I have understood what the Lakers was trying to accomplish. I might not have agreed with every detail but you could see what they were aiming for.
At the moment the only plan looks like stalling to get to the next year. A good plan starts with the F.O. having a vision, hiring a coach who turn that vision into actionable plan, and then getting players who can execute that plan. This year was that completely upside down.
rr says
The Lakers business was and is never been more valuable
—
Franchise values are up all over the league, so this is irrelevant to yet another FO apologia.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether people think Jim Buss is a smart guy who has had a lot of bad luck and is getting shafted by the NBA and unfairly maligned by ignorant fans, or if they think he is a dumb guy who is destroying one of the greatest franchises in sports, or if they think that he is something in between. What matters is that his decisions start working and the team starts improving. Right now, neither is happening, so he is going to take some heat, as any guy running a team in as bad a shape as the Lakers are would, and defenses of the FO are, pretty much by definition, going to be lacking.