Minnesota Timberwolves vs Los Angeles LakersFri Apr 10, 10:30 PM EST – NBAt, FSN, TWSN Line: LAL -5.5, O/U: 203.0 Staples Center – Los Angeles, CA Recent Matchups |
|
Ranks
|
Latest Results |
Leaders
|
|
|
Ranks
|
Latest Results |
Leaders
|
|
I have some good news and some bad news. Let’s start with the good news. There is no longer any fear of the Lakers finishing the season with the 5th worst record in the league and, in the process, dropping their lottery odds to only a 55% chance of retaining their pick. With only four games left in the season, the Lakers have five fewer wins than the Orlando Magic, leaving them with no shot of “catching” them in the standings. As we’ve said multiple times, finishing with the 4th worst record gives the Lakers an 83% chance of keeping their pick. So, that brings some relief.
The bad news, however, is that an 83% chance is not a 100% chance and isn’t even the 96% they would have had if they’d finished with the 3rd worst record. Further, they have almost no chance of catching the 76ers for that 3rd worst record since that team faces three teams angling for playoff positioning while the Lakers only play one such game of their remaining four (against the Mavs).
More bad news is that the Lakers actually play four more games. That might sound harsh, but the reality is that, at this stage, there is little meaning in any of these contests. Add to this that it is unlikely we see high quality basketball, and the viewing experience is not what I’d call “must watch”. That leaves a team playing out the string against, mostly, other teams playing out the string. Not very inspiring stuff. It used to be that this time of the year brought anticipation and eagerness to start the playoffs and get into the part of the year when the stakes and level of play rise exponentially. For the Lakers, these are not those days. I miss those days.
Tonight, then, get ready for a barn burner between the Lakers and the Wolves. Jeremy Lin will sit out with a sore knee, putting Jabari Brown into the starting lineup. That brings me to this:
With Lin sitting out, last year's Missouri Tigers' starting backcourt is now the starting backcourt for the Los Angeles Lakers.
— Darius Soriano (@forumbluegold) April 10, 2015
And this:
https://twitter.com/Radius1238/status/586596388051492864
And this:
https://twitter.com/regularbarnett/status/586596786459938816
Hey, if you can’t enjoy a good joke at this time of year under these circumstances. I feel for you. Maybe this game will be as enjoyable. At least we get Jordan Clarkson and Andrew Wiggins (can you believe I just typed that) facing off as a battle of likely all-rookie 1st team members (with Wiggins likely winning the Rookie of the Year). Hopefully both can have a big night. If previous match ups between these teams hold, though, odds are that Zach LaVine outdoes both of them. The former UCLA Bruin seems to get up to play the Lakers.
Where you can watch: 7:30pm start time on TWC Sportsnet and nationally on NBA TV. Also listen on ESPN Radio 710AM.
Aaron says
Correct. If the Lakers lose this year’s pick (and there will be a 17% chance of that happening on lottery night), then I would probably be on board with tanking next year
——————————————————
It’s more important to tank next year if we don’t lose the pick this year. Because if we lose this years pick at least we get a draft pick next year no matter what. Althougg under both circumstances it’s important to lose again next year.
Todd says
Anonymous – your post in the last thread, at 2:59, was outstanding.
Robert says
bryan S: I am glad you appreciate the history. Ancient Rome is another good comparison. The throne was often determined via nepotism and the results were often disastrous.
Darius: Jim is widely recognized as “the owner”. Just like even though there is a coaching team, Byron is the head coach. Jim controls basketball ops and he does so because his last name is Buss. The fact that he is part of a trust does not change that. I have also called out Jeanie a number of times (not sure why you think I do not know about the Laker family trust ownership). Please give me another example of a single person who has as much control as Jim does in terms of basketball ops and ownership. Cuban and Arison’s son are similar, but do not excerpt as much control as Jim. He is Jerry Jones of the Hardwood.
bryan S. says
(Re-posted For Context (and bite) from last thread, Robert @ 5:17pm above)
Robert : Enjoy the historical references. They are as out of scale as your personal animus is for Jim Buss, and lend a grandeur to your novel arguments.
rr says
Here is what Jim himself said about whether he is an owner. It is part of the quote in which he set the contention timetable:
“I don’t know if you can fire yourself if you own the team … but what I would say is I’d walk away and you guys figure out who’s going to run basketball operations because I obviously couldn’t do the job.”
rr says
I am not a Kelly Dwyre fan, but this from something he wrote in January:
On Tuesday, as one of a round of interviews provided to give a sort of state of the Lakers’ particular union, Lakers part-owner and president of business operations Jeanie Buss doubled-down on her brother’s promise. And she made a whole lot of sense in doing so. From the Los Angeles Times:
On Tuesday night, Lakers President and Governor Jeanie Buss said she’ll hold him to that {promise to step down}
“Yeah, of course,” Buss told The Times at the 11th annual Lakers All-Access event at Staples Center on Tuesday night. “But I don’t see why — given the resources, given our legacy, given who our head coach is, who our front office is — [we’ll have] any problem.”
Chibi says
Need the Spurs to win out so clippers drop in standings enough for us to keep late 2nd rounder
Craig W. says
A number of bloggers have been so busy patting each other on the back because they are able to find new ways to describe Jim Buss’ incompetence, that it begins to look like the ‘talking heads’ reinforcing each other’s opinions and confusing this activity for actual fact finding. You are so busy agreeing with each other that you don’t realize all the oxygen has left the room.
You don’t have to be a blind front office supporter to see the folly of all this. Nothing new has been said for practically the entire season. How about waiting until the front office actually does something before presuming you know what they are going to do – and then brow-beating them for doing what they haven’t done yet.
Craig W. says
Meanwhile, here’s to a win tonight and no Spurs losses for the rest of the year.
BlizzardOfOz says
Did anyone else watch Rockets-Spurs? That was some bizarre officiating. How about the Rockets, #2 or #3 all year, and now suddenly #6 with less than a week left. I almost feel sorry for them … nah.
rr says
Todd,
The 259 PM post was me–thanks for the compliment.
Hale says
Oh – so – hard – to watch this game. I don’t think I can make it to the second half.
At least I don’t have to get mad when they win anymore this season.
KenOak says
“It’s more important to tank next year if we don’t lose the pick this year. Because if we lose this years pick at least we get a draft pick next year no matter what. Althougg under both circumstances it’s important to lose again next year.”
If we keep our pick this year, then I think we absolutely go into next year trying to win as many games as possible. Next year is the year that the FO should want to try and showcase the franchise. You don’t do that by tanking again. Try to win 40+ games next year on Kobe’s last year with Clarkson/Randle/Pick. Then, make the pitch to free agents that the team is only a piece or two away from contending.
Just my humble opinion.
the other Stephen says
Why is Minnesota so bad. :c
Aaron says
KenOak,
But why tangibly is it a good idea to get forty wins next season? What does this acomplish? Listen… I hate the socialist system the NBA has created. I would love it if bad teams were incentivized to win. But this is the system we are playing with. I just don’t see a scenario where it makes sense to try and win next year unless a player becomes available in free agency (Leanard) who is worth a max contract (and he is barley worth a max) or a max player (Cousins) becomes available for pennies on the dollar because of attitude issues. Other than those scenarios I can’t see another reason not to tank again. Just my humble opinion 😉
Chris J says
If we keep our pick this year, then I think we absolutely go into next year trying to win as many games as possible… You don’t do that by tanking again. Try to win 40+ games next year on Kobe’s last year with Clarkson/Randle/Pick.
—–
I totally agree, such as we can know today how the roster will look next fall. The idea of another lost season won’t fly with Lakers fans; this isn’t Philadelphia where the Sixers are easily the city’s fourth most-popular team.
At some point you have to turn a corner, and hopefully Clarkson, a healthy Randle and a high pick this year — coupled with some useful vets and (God willing) a healthy Kobe — can serve as the foundation for a new era as the Kobe era ends.
If the Lakers do have to give up their 2017 pick by virtue of keeping this year’s in the Top Five, that’s another reason to try to compete next season.
Circumstances (age, injuries, Dwight’s raisin nuts shriveling under the L.A. spotlight), and some really bad moves have put the Lakers in a tarnished state. With new blood in place, 2016-17 is the time to begin to restore the luster.
Shaun says
Hopefully houston loses out amd we keep a pick at 24 as opposed to 28
We could always buy another 2md rounder
KenOak says
Correct me if I’m wrong, (and I absolutely could be.) but if the Lakers keep their pick this year then next years pick is only top 3 protected. So, it really doesn’t make sense to lose next year unless you believe that the team will be bad enough to get that top 3 pick? I mean, you saw how much of a struggle it was this year to lose games. Next year with Kobe back, a 2nd year of Clarkson, a full year with Randle, and a top draft pick… Seems rather unlikely that they will be that bad.
Oh yeah -> Hey Robert…it’s about that time of the year again where we need to start worrying about the Spurs getting another ring. /sigh
rr says
Correct me if I’m wrong, (and I absolutely could be.) but if the Lakers keep their pick this year then next years pick is only top 3 protected.
—
You’re not wrong. So, like I said last night, if the Lakers keep this pick, they could be the worst team in the NBA next year and still lose the 2016 pick. It is also protected 1-3 in 2017 and is unprotected in 2018. After the pick for Nash is conveyed to Philadelphia, then the whole thing starts again, with some key differences, with the pick that the Lakers still owe to Orlando for Howard. That pick is protected 1-5 in 2017 and 2018, and unprotected in 2019.
These facts, along with the fact that I don’t believe 40 wins is a death sentence (depends on who you have and how you do it) are why I do do not see a multi-year 76ers-style tank as being a realistic approach for the Lakers.
Ko says
Aaron as was pointed out by rr and I have brought up several times, due to FO Mensa like thinking they have to be bottem 3 next year. Unless you only suit up 4 guys each game this is impossible. Nash/Jimmy super move just won’t go away.
Next year you spend your $25 million, add s top 5 and hope for a healthy Kobe/Randal and maybe Jack wil start showing up again!
Robert says
KenOak: Yes – and unfortunately they are heavy favs. And we have to listen to the posts here that will root against the Rockets and the Heat. Some will even root for the Spurs because they “play the game the way it should be played” : (
rr: “realistic approach for the Lakers” While I agree, I also would not have found the last two years a realistic approach either. So anything is possible : )
Aaron says
rr,
So what do you suppose the Lakers do? Sign Monroe to a max deal?
Craig W. says
I believe the 2nd round pick is the Clippers’ pick, conveyed to Houston. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what Houston does, only that the Clips finish with the 6th best record or worse.
rr says
Since people are talking a lot about the pick from the Clippers, here is how it works:
2015 second round draft pick from L.A. Clippers
L.A. Clippers’ 2015 2nd round pick to the L.A. Lakers (via Toronto to Houston) protected for selections 31-50 and 56-60 (if this pick falls within either of its protected ranges and is therefore not conveyed, then the L.A. Clippers’ obligation to the L.A. Lakers will be extinguished.
—
http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/draft/future_drafts/detailed
rr says
rr,
So what do you suppose the Lakers do? Sign Monroe to a max deal?
—
Are you asking what I think they will do or what I think they should do?
Ko says
They need a real center and a NBA SF. No more Johnson/ Kelly and Hill is not a center. So Monroe is an option depending on their pick. Tanking days are over the fans and TW won’t put up with another bait and swith BS season from this ownership.
Aaron says
rr,
What they should do if it were up to you. If you don’t think they should tank again next year…
rr says
Aaron,
Well, buddy, we covered that and your verdict was that I am not cut out to be a GM. So let’s wait and see what Buss and Kupchak do.
Aaron says
rr,
Haha. That’s no fun.
Vasheed says
Loved Kelly in this game. He is not the type of guy who is going to beat his man 1 on 1. But if you leave him open he is going to score on you.
After this year it just doesn’t make any sense to tank. The Lakers would be better off just handing over the picks they owe, hopefully late first rounders.
Vasheed says
BTW Darius I have been noticing the page drastically slowing down at times lately at both work and home. Not having any issues on other sites.
Mid-Wilshire says
There should be little concern about the Lakers striving to win, say, 40 games next season, especially if they build the team wisely and shrewdly with a major part of the emphasis being on drafting well.
The Golden State Warriors are a case in point. Over the last 4 season their win-loss record has been as follows:
2011-12 23-43 .348 (4th in Pacific Division)
2012-13 47-35 .573 (2nd place)
2013-14 51-31 .622 (2nd)
2014-15 65-15 .813 (1st place)
Mid-Wilshire says
Below is the conclusion of my previous point about the Lakers not being afraid of a mediocre record of 40 wins next year.
Golden State won 47 games in 2012, 51 in 2013, and 65 this year so far. Their 47 win season did not doom them to mediocrity because their key players were young and eventually grew and improved. The same can be true of the Lakers.
Given time, 40 wins could be come 48 wins, then 54 wins, and so forth.
It’s all a process. And we should give it time.
Anonymous says
Aaron, you act as if losing doesn’t have a price. IMO it doesn’t come for free.
Among other things, you risk establishing a losing mentality among coaches and players (especially the young ones who lack experience). In a league where the general talent level is very high players need to learn to do what’s necessary to get wins. As a young player you can pick bad habits on a losing team that might hurt you for the rest of your career.
Benching younger players in favor of washed-up veterans means they will get less playing time and thus less experience and opportunities to develop. It’s a self-defeating strategy if your plan is to do a rebuild.
On the economic side people who enjoy the sport of basketball and don’t think it’s about intentionally losing might lose interest in the Lakers, hurting ratings and merchandise sales. Etc. etc.
Something like that is the price that invariably comes with losing. What do you get in return? Maybe you get to keep your top-3 pick (meaning you’ll have to give away another one down the road – in addition to the one that goes to Orlando). And just maybe that player will turn into a difference maker. Then again, maybe the pick that goes to Philly a year or so later will turn out to be a better player. Or we’ll simply fail to secure that top-three pick next season because someone else will get the top three picks.
So you end up paying a price and don’t know if you will get anything in return.
(Side note: And it’s not like trying to win games automatically means you’ll end up overpaying for mediocre players – though the Lakers have a history of doing that. Those are two different things that should be discussed apart from each other.)
KenOak says
Nice post Mid-Wilshire. That’s pretty much how I feel about it. Hopefully the FO doesn’t feel any pressure to grab a max guy this year. Just let the young pups develop and give Kobe a send off. Then, maybe, go after a FO in 2016. Nothing wrong with winning 40 games next year as a stepping stone to 50 the year after.
Craig W. says
Darius,
Vasheed has a point. I noticed some really strange behavior a couple of days ago – the screen kept ‘bouncing’ up to the ads. It was as if a virus or an ad had taken some control of the site. This isn’t happening this morning, so maybe you or the admins found something and resolved it.
Robert says
The discussion about how to pursue next year is interesting. In my case I am a little in between the two views. I understand the multi-year tank and the benefits of it, but I also understand the long term culture of losing. I think we make our pick, get Randle back, and get Kobe back. This will make us better. What I do not do is sign FA simply for the sake of winning 10 extra games next year. Unless you sign the next super star, don’t do it. You need to ask, when will we contend and what will that team look like? Are the signings that we would do in the summer of 15 still gong to be part of the team? Also the stepping stone method that KenOak describes above, can work, but we have a major change coming in our team. Winning 40, then 50, then 60 is possible, but what generally is not done is: Win 40, change your superstar out and win 50 The Kobe conundrum. Hence I tend to side with the tank side of this, but not with the illusion that we will keep a top 3 pick rather that we will get a higher pick and keep our cap space.. I am rooting for records and draft picks, not TW ratings and fan interest. The only objective is getting the next title as soon as possible.
Aaron says
The golden state warriors are actualy a great example. They tanked for several seasons to get solid draft picks concluding with a massive tank in which they lost something like 16 of their last 17 games to be able to draft Harrison Barnes. After they aquired Clay Thompson, Steph Curry, and Harrison Barnes via top picks in the draft (and a great draft steal in Draymond Green) they were able to start winning more games organically as those young players started developing. I think the Lakers should do exactly what the Warriors did. And hopefully we will be even more lucky and our big free agent signing (Andre Igudala) won’t age prematurely and suck.
Again… You can’t force things. When building a team there is no microwave option. You need to be patient and do things the right way. Draft your young cheap studs and hope they develop and then you will be able to sign the top free agents. Jerry West knows what he was doing. And so does Mitch. That means tanking until you can’t tank anymore. That means tanking until your players are too good to tank anymore. There is no such thing as a winning or losing culture. We were winning and winning and winning until our roster got old and bad. There is however a talent culture. It’s about winning or losing rosters. You’re all right.., take it from the Warriors.
rr says
As I have said a few times, the Lakers may try to win next year and be really bad anyway. Mudiay, Towns, Okafor, and Russell are all very young, and Randle will be effectively be a rookie in many respects. So, even if Randle/pick/Clarkson is a start, it is unlikely that those guys will move the needle on the actual W/L record all that much next year. One way to look at it is to look at Utah, which is showing real progress now, but
a) It took time
b) They are still under .500 (although not over the second half) and will be in a battle to just to make postseason next year, although they will certainly have a shot.
Also, the FAs people are talking about are mostly restricted. Monroe is an UFA, but he will draw a lot of bids. And, other fanbases and FOs probably still have Lakeritis to an extent–Orlando fans wouldn’t like the idea of losing Tobias Harris to the Lakers even if their FO has to overpay him.
So, the Lakers could easily miss on all the young FAs, which will then probably lead to more short deals for mediocre and sub-mediocre veterans, since the FO and Kobe will probably not want Kobe going out on a team with 3 young guys + Kelly/Young/Brown/Black/76ers-type guys. That is where I could see Rondo here for 2/12M or something.
As to the larger argument about tanking etc, three points:
1. Not every 41-41 team is the same. The 2006-7 Lakers were supposedly in No-Man’s Land, but they had Kobe, Phil, Odom, and Bynum, plus a couple of useful young guys.
2. If the Lakers didn’t still owe the pick, I would be much more in favor of tanking next year.
3. I am, as I have said, unconvinced that the market and the brand mean all that much anymore, and I think that factor has always been overstated anyway. But in any case, the media have changed dramatically in the last 15 years, and people are starting to note the differences in state taxes as a factor in FA recruitment, which puts the California and the New York teams at a structural disadvantage. But from the POV of people who believe in the allure of the Lakers, I think it would follow from that that the Lakers would be better able to leverage their way from 41-41 to 59-23 than other teams would, and I think a guy like Anthony Davis would want to see some plus decisions having been made by the FO during the next couple of years if he considers coming here. Basically, I think something analogous to what happened in Miami in 2010 is unlikely to happen again.
One last point: I sometimes lurk at KnickerBlogger, and they are, as you would expect, talking about a lot of the same guys and have a lot of the same long-term hopes that Lakers fans do. So one subtext here is, as some of us noted after Phil went to NY, is that Jim and Phil are on a collision course of sorts. Both of them may fail, but I think it is unlikely that both of them will succeed, given how tough their respective jobs are.
Anonymous says
Robert,
Like I have said, the best analogy for what is going on now is this is 1992, Clarkson is Nick Van Exel, and Anthony Davis is Shaq. But the problems are:
1. The Lakers don’t have many draft picks.
2. They don’t have Jerry West and Jerry Buss.
3. The NBA is very different.
So if you want the next title as soon as possible, I think that the team is going to have to spend some non-superstar money in FA. As people have said, the Lakers simply do not have a starting lineup, and they do not have enough picks to build one through the draft.
Hale says
I’d turn doberman on the Lakers if they decide to drive the Philly route. The years where they acted like they couldn’t find better point guards on the market over Smush and Chucky might have taken years off of my lifespan. Recently they have the excuses of death, injury, coach churn, CBA, Stern, etc. as legitimate excuses towards leading to this historically bad season that immediately followed their previously historically bad season. And still, they might lose their pick which might be anywhere from bust to projected rotation player.
My interest for next season is what a broken leg messed up for this season: See if Randle and Clarkson can be players for this team. That means, personally, I can accept no playoffs but not outright stupidity e.g.. flotsam on the team much eating up up time for developing players. I doubt if any upper echelon player will be available in free agency this coming off season so get a mid-tier starter so that some of the scrubs and bench guys can play their appropriate roles.
I’m close to going doberman on Scott also. The same personality quirks (back biting) that I hated about Phil and D’Antoni (back biting, excuse generation, riding the djinni) are repackaged in Byron. Plus, he’s never had a roster built around his coaching style and from what he’s shown this year, I don’t see his principles as something that you center as your core philosophy.
Let this team become solid, a nightmare for other teams to play, and I can return to watching without my stomach turning flips during games. The capabilities of those in charge to make that happen remain to be seen.
Anonymous says
Aaron,
Curry, Thompson, and Barnes all went at 7. So, if any of those picks had been Top-3 protected, the Warriors would not have all those guys. It isn’t that complicated. Also, while the Warriors were supposedly in full tank mode, they traded a bunch of guys to bring in David Lee. They also traded Monta Ellis for Bogut, after winning 23 games.
Again, you are basically saying that having Clarkson, Randle and this year’s guy, plus the Lakers name, will get Durant and/or Davis and/or another guy to want to come here. That’s fine, but that doesn’t seem all that likely to me. And, you are also saying that even though the pick is only Top-3 protected, you would rather take a shot at it than pay money to guys like Tobias Harris. Again, fine, but unless there is a Shaq or a Duncan in the next draft, I don’t see that as a great bet.
We will see what the FO does.
Aaron says
The Warriors had a top seven protected pick. That’s why they lost 16 of 17 games so they could keep their pick and select Barnes.
rr,
The star tax thing is not really a big thing. What people don’t know is you pay taxes where the games are played not where your team is located.
bleedpurplegold says
@aaron:
Nice point…i would add the marketing possibilities the la market offers compared to, say, okc or sacramento….so no matter the taxes, star players will ALWAYS make more money in la
Vasheed says
Aaron,
Half of your games are played at home.
Aaron says
Vasheed,
That’s why I said its blown out of proportion. It matters but it matters literally half as much as people think. Star players generate much more revenue playing for a Lakers brand than playing for the Mavs. I’ve used this analogy before. It’s akin to a movie star signing on to a big project that will be put in two million theaters as opposed I an Independant movie that will be in five thousand theaters. The Lakers have by far the most fans in the entire world. The big stars would rather have their movie shown in the most theaters.
Aaron says
More evidence the Lakers were right not to think Phil Jackson is a good talent evaluator (besides his love of Derek Fisher the player and coach). Appernelty monroe to Knicks is a done deal.
http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2015/4/12/8393613/greg-monroe-free-agent-rumors-new-york-knicks
Robert says
rr (I think that is you): With regard to 1992: The 5 years prior to 1992 included 4 trips to the Finals and 2 titles. The last 5 years have contained zero trips to the Finals. It took 8 years from 1992 to get back to the Finals. So if your comparison is correct that will be a 13 year drought for the Lakers, dwarfing the 8 year record breaking prediction I made a couple of years back (and was laughed at by many). Needless to say, while I can’t disagree with some of the similarities to 1992, I am hoping for less than 8 years. I guess Kobe’s final year is akin to Magic’s comeback. Does this this mean Byron is Del Harris? If so the Byron haters are going to have to put up with him for 4 more years. Did I tell everyone that my least favorite coach in Laker history is Del Harris? I have decided that MD did not eclipse him due to the shorter tenure.
bleedpurplegold says
Max for monroe?!? Seriously, i dont care just how bad or good a franchise is, you cannot give monroe the max….that guy is highly unreliable on the defensive end, that alone would disqualify the guy from getting that much….furthermore, he isnt a franchise changing type of guy, so it doesnt make sense for teams like la or ny to commit that type of dollars to him in the situation they are, especially if you draft towns/okafor like ny will and get your post presence via the draft…..although it makes more sence for ny as the already have a superstar in his (fading) prime in melo and want to win now….but whom elsw will they have now with 40mill commited to melo and monroe?!?
rr says
The big stars would rather have their movie shown in the most theaters.
—-
Like I have said–IMO this narrative relies too much on Lakers Exceptionalism. James had no interest in being here; Howard walked. Even if we accept the presumption that being a Laker opens up a lot of marketing doors, every FA is a different guy with different priorities and marketing and show biz opportunities are available for charismatic guys who play for good teams.
As to the Warriors and Harrison Barnes, if the Lakers pick was Top-7 protected, I would be more on board. It isn’t.
Monroe: If the Lakers do sign him, or Middleton, or Harris, to a big contract, we will see a lot of posts about what a disaster it is because of the guy’s limitations. My counter would be that it is too linear a way of looking at the problem. You can overpay some guys if
a) They have skills that you need and are young.
b) You can get other guys for less than their market value.
Looking at the whole situation, I think the Lakers are going to have to spend some money to get one or two young, legitimate NBA starters, even if they are not superstars.
Darius Soriano says
rr,
To build on your point about spending – I am of the mind that if you are to ovetpay for a guy, this is the summer to do it. In the summer of ’16 the cap will go up so much that contracts signed this summer will have a better relative value. Also, that summer so many teams will have cap space that many contracts will be overpays but within the construct of the higher cap, making it less likely for a guy to outperform his contract relative to its value within the new cap’s construct.
Kimberly says
Aaron- good point about the tax disadvantage being overstated. I’d also add that I’m pretty sure the federal tax allows for an adjustment on amt of state tax paid…
That aside- I’m with those in favor of trying to win as many games next year. The other side of the coin of the lakers being a FA destination due to it’s greater exposure and movie theatre analogy that rr had mentioned- is that ratings and public image matter more.
We are at a point where other teams are erasing that greater exposure edge- with internet, social media, and other ways of global branding – today’s reality, I don’t think Lakers can withstand more tanking while still being upheld as a “storied franchise” without being made a laughing stock.
We can’t be a champion contender without being able to be a playoff team. While we shouldn’t “strive for” 40 wins- getting 40wins with a young core will sustain the hope.
Kimberly says
Hi guys, hate to be a downer, but I can’t help but think that getting getting good draft picks and FAs will be anywhere near enough.
I can’t see GSW going anywhere in the next five years…and other teams such as Hou, dal, por, all seem way ahead in terms of analytics. New Orleans have the next big superstar in davis..,all dreary.
Looking at Boston- who’s sitting pretty at the 7th seed- can’t help but think they will get a championship before us. Their FO seems capable of being cutthroat- trading away their stars, bringing in stevens… Hoarding picks…. All sad face here. Just saw the BOS v. CLE game .
Kimberly says
Aaron-
On your thought of using GSW’s multiple tanking years as an example for lakers-
I would note that one of the reasons they are successful currently is from pure luck- they were able to sign curry to a ridiculously cheap deal after his rookie deal expired- due to curry’s ankle surgury. No way could they have been able to have to room to create their depth without it (unless they waived David lee I guess… )
Also- even at GSW, is argue that they would not be where they were at without Kerr. From what I understand, Kerr poached the best assistants around the league and created a fun bball think tank like atmosphere with his coaching staff…beating a dead horse here but byron scott (and all the assistants he chose bc “they think like him”) have to all just GO. Our FO needs to start using it’s money to steal the best coaches and analytics talent.
rr says
Kimberly,
Good post. It may not matter big-picture, but I think “laughingstock” is a key word in your post. To a lot of the media and other fanbases, the Lakers are a joke right now. Not a rebuilding team like Orlando, or a bad team like Denver–but a joke. Many of them think Kobe’s contract is a joke, they think Byron is a joke, that Jim Buss is a joke, and that having Nick Young on a four-year deal is a joke.
Again, that may not really matter in a substantive way, unless players and agents think so, too–but it is definitely not a good thing,
rr says
Aaron- good point about the tax disadvantage being overstated
—
All I said is that it is a disadvantage; I didn’t say it was huge. Howard mentioned it when he went from here to Houston, Trevor Ariza mentioned it when he went from Washington to Houston, and supposedly Marc Gasol is already considering it as he prepares for FA.
Aaron’s position will look a lot better when a top-tier FA is standing with Jim, Jeanie and Mitch holding up a Lakers jersey.
Kimberly says
rr- thanks and same to you.
I would suggest though that when it comes to the tax issue- when I heat players such as dwight and Trevor state it as a potential reason- that it’s hard to take too seriously. I look at it as just another reason to state for their decision- rather than it having mucho substantive weight. Having a tax background (tax Llm) I can say with ease that it’s such a complicated matter and a very individual matter that is particular to each individual taxpayer with respect to their financial situation.
That said, I was wondering if maybe the focus for the lakers- should be to plain outspend in every other area besides players? It’s understood that the CBA has handicapped the lakers dramatically in regards to the players cap, tax, and profit-sharing.
Wondering why we can’t just create more expenses (coach, analytics, general r&d), thus less profit to send over to the other teams? And create our advantages there? Not unwisely of course. I’m pretty sure there is no cap on expenses? While it’s not a good example- the knicks and gsw seems to be able to spend more on gm and coach.