With the Lakers’ season over and the new front office frequently emphasizing free agency as a means to strengthen the team, fans have been focused on ways to create more cap room and targeting potential free agent targets. This may just be my impression, but it sounded like the primary justification for hiring Pelinka was his ability to navigate the cap and leverage his relationships with agents and players to recruit free agents, and Pelinka has probably spoken more on that aspect of team building than anything else.
After the misadventures in free agency the team has experienced the last few years, I have spent a fair amount of time thinking through the best way to obtain and maximize cap room. A few months ago I worked through the Lakers salary cap picture for the next few years, highlighting how much room the team likely have under different scenarios and ways the Lakers could build around the core and add impact players like Paul George. That analysis drove home the need to take advantage of a two-year window to add pieces using potential cap room, before Randle, Russell, and Ingram’s extensions kick in and eat up any possibility of meaningful space.
In this post I will try to forecast this summer’s free agent market conditions by looking at the available capital and free agent pool, comparing these conditions to the last few summers (including last year’s mind-blowing bonanza), and then thinking through how the market should impact the Lakers’ strategy.
As detailed below, this summer’s free agency will not repeat last year’s absurdity, but it still forecasts to involve substantial cap room and corresponding high contract amounts. Given the difficulties in finding value in free agency, the Lakers must be careful to not fall into the same traps in overpaying mediocre, short-term players, and should prioritize continuing to develop and build on a long-lasting foundation.
LAKERS CAP OVERVIEW
As a refresher, below is an overview of the Lakers’ cap picture for the next two years, followed by a few summary points to keep in mind.
| Player | 17-18 | 18-19 | Notes |
| Deng | $17.2 | $18.0 | |
| Mozgov | $15.3 | $16.0 | |
| Clarkson | $11.6 | $12.5 | |
| Brewer | $7.6 | — | |
| Black* | $6.7 | — | Non-guaranteed (assume waived) |
| Young* | $5.7 | — | Player option (assume denied) |
| Russell | $5.6 | $7.0 | Extension eligible in ‘19 |
| Ingram | $5.5 | $5.8 | |
| Randle** | $4.1 | $12.3 | Extension cap hold in ‘18 |
| Nance | $1.5 | $2.3 | Extension eligible in ‘19 |
| Zubac | $1.3 | $1.5 | Extension eligible in ‘19 |
| Nwaba | $0.8 | — | |
| 17 #2 | $5.2 | $6.2 | |
| 17 #28 (Hou) | $1.2 | $1.4 | |
| 19 #12 | — | — | |
| Holds | $0.0 | $1.6 | Roster holds @$.0.8M until 12 spots |
| Salary Cap | $101.0 | $102.0 | |
| *Min Salary | $76.9 | $84.6 | |
| Cap Space | $24.1 | $17.4 |
The above picture assumes the team keeps its 2017 lottery pick, and that Black and Young do not return, resulting in around $24M in projected cap room this summer. The numbers shrink and grow based on changing the assumptions. For example:
- If Young and Black return on their current deals: down to $11.7M in room.
- If the team loses the top 3 pick, has a mid-lottery 2018, and things otherwise stay the same as above: $30.3M in 2017 and $22.7M in 2018.
- They can stretch Mozgov and/or Deng, with the remaining salary stretched over twice the number of years plus one, saving $8-10M per contract per stretched year:
- Stretching Mozgov in 2017: cuts his salary to $6.9M over 7 years.
- Stretching Mozgov in 2018: $6.5M over 5 years.
- Stretching Deng in 2017: $7.7M over 7 years.
- Stretching Deng in 2018: $7.4M over 5 years.
- There is a path to massive cap room: if Black/Young do not return, the team stretches Mozgov this summer, and trades Deng into cap space (with the #28 and 33 picks attached): $51M in 2017 and $54M in 2018.
In other words, the Lakers have cap room to target significant free agents this summer, and have various options to create whatever cap room they would reasonably need under different scenarios (e.g., stretch Mozgov, attach assets to unload Deng or Brewer, deal Clarkson, etc.).
Note that the maximum free agent salaries are based on the player’s years in the league and a percent of the salary cap for that year, as follows:
| 7 yrs or less | 25% of cap ($25.3M) | 30% if Designated Veteran Eligible
($30.3M) |
| 7-9 yrs | 30% of cap ($30.3M) | 35% if Designated Veteran
($35.4M) |
| 10+ yrs | 35% of cap
($35.4M) |
No Designated Veteran option |
A veteran max free agent like Gordon Hayward or Blake Griffin (7 years experience) will cost just over $30M in starting salary, and the team can create that room if needed through stretches and/or reasonable trades.
PAST FREE AGENT MARKETS
With the Lakers’ picture clear, I tried to forecast this summer’s free agent market by comparing the conditions to prior off-seasons. For purposes of this exercise, I looked at the last four free agent classes, which includes last summer’s exceptional circumstances caused by the once-in-a-lifetime cap hike, and the prior three summers to provide a few “normal” years of context.
The chart below lists high level data for the last four free agent classes, including the salary cap level, the total amount of cash available in the market, the number of teams with cap room, and contract information for players changing teams. Note that the second row attempts to capture “total capital in the market,” which means how much money teams collectively had to spend on free agents that year. There are a few ways to calculate this total, and I chose to combine: (1) the total cap room for teams under the cap, plus (2) the midlevel salary times the total number of non-cap teams (to include teams’ ability to offer significant contracts even if over the cap).
Teams also can use Bird rights and other smaller exceptions to spend money over the cap, but I did not factor in those amounts when calculating market capital. My estimate is not accurate to the dollar, but it should provide fairly accurate comparative data points, which will help analyze resulting player contracts.
| Category | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017* |
| Salary cap level | $59M | $63M | $70M | $94M | $101M |
| Midlevel exception | $5.2M | $5.3M | $5.5M | $5.6M | $8.4M |
| Total capital in the market | $216M | $283M | $333M | $972M | $475M |
| Capital/salary cap ratio | 3.66 | 4.49 | 4.75 | 10.34 | 4.70 |
| Number of teams with cap room | 13 | 18 | 20 | 30 | 16 |
| Total contracts at midlevel or above | 21 contracts
$189M spent |
27 contracts
$265M spent |
42 contracts
$545M spent |
70 contracts
$999M spent |
32
$600M |
| Total players changing team at midlevel or above contract amount | 16 contracts
$150M spent |
12 contracts
$110M spent |
18 contracts
$192M spent |
42 contracts
$549M spent |
16 contracts
$250M spent |
| Average contract amount for players changing teams at midlevel or above contract | $9.4M | $9.2M | $10.7M | $13.1M | $15M |
| Total players changing teams on contracts over $10M per year | 5 | 2 | 8 | 25(!) | 8 |
(*Note that the 2017 numbers are projections, particularly the predicted contract details, as explained below)
2016 obviously leaps off the page as total absurdity. With the cap rising over $20M, every team had cap room, totaling approximately $1 billion in spending power, 3-4 times what was available in prior summers. As a result, 42 players changed teams while receiving contracts at or over the midlevel amount, almost equaling the three prior summers combined (46). Over 25 players changed teams with contracts over $10M per year, compared with 15 combined the prior three years. Everything about last year’s free agency was unprecedented.
The prior three years shows what happens in more normal market conditions, with a significant portion of the league not having cap room, and only about half the teams picking up a free agent at the midlevel or above. The much lower amount of capital in the market in those years also controlled salaries, with very few massive Mozgov-ish deals going to role players.
2015 was particularly interesting as there was a spike in the total number of midlevel or above contracts (42), and $545M was spent on those contracts (well above the total capital in the market, mostly from teams using Bird rights to go over the cap to keep their own players). This suggests that many teams were planning ahead and trying to lock players up ahead of the pending cap spike. Many of those contracts looked rich at the time are now providing great value (e.g. Danny Green at 4/$40M, Beverly at 4/$23M, etc.). Note the distinction between teams who wisely planned ahead and were spenders in 2015 to lock in long term deals vs. teams that decided it would be better to save all their money and be big spenders in 2016 (cough, Lakers…). Whoops.
PROJECTING THE 2017 MARKET
So how does 2017 compare to prior summers? The summer will be somewhere in between 2016 and past summers, but more like 2015 than 2016:
- Salary cap: $101M
- Midlevel exception: $8.4M
- Teams with projected cap room: 16
- Total capital in the market: $475M
- Total capital/salary cap ratio: 4.70
Even with the cap rising to $101M, only about 16 teams project to have cap room (although this is very fluid based on what teams/players do with options, non-guaranteed deals, etc.). As a result of last year’s frenzy, the midlevel exception rises to $8.4M. The total capital in the market projects to about $475M, far lower than the $1B available last summer, and closer to the $333M in 2015.
The capital to salary cap ratio, which is a good way to normalize the available dollars based on cap inflation, is at 4.70, right in line with 2014 and 2015, and less than half of 2016’s 10.34 level. To me, this indicates that free agent contracts this offseason should compare to 2015 levels once adjusted for cap inflation. In other words, if we look at player contracts based on a percentage of the cap, rather than in pure dollars, then I expect the contract percentages to be closer to 2015 levels than 2016 levels.
To illustrate, below is a chart listing free agents that changed teams during the last four seasons and their contract details (years and starting salary as a percentage of that year’s cap). The right hand column lists the free agents available this summer, with players likely to stay highlighted (many of the others will stay too, of course).
| Tier | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 |
| Salary Cap | $59M | $63M | $70M | $94M | $101M |
| Capital in Market | $216M | $283M | $333M | $972M | $475M |
| Capital/cap ratio | 3.66 | 4.49 | 4.75 | 10.34 | 4.70 |
| Teams with cap room | 13 | 18 | 20 | 30 | 16 |
| Superstar | Dwight: 4/37%
*0 stayed home
|
Lebron: 2/33%
*1 stayed home (Melo) |
*4 stayed home (MGasol, Love, Kawhi, Butler) | Durant: 2/29%
*1 stayed home (Lebron) |
Paul |
| Fringe/solid all star | JSmith: 4/29%
Al Jeff: 3/23% Iggy: 4/20% *0 stayed home
|
*3 stayed home (Hayward, Wade, Lowry) | Aldridge: 4/30%
*5 stayed home (Jordan, Millsap, Green, Lopez, Dragic)
|
Horford: 4/30%
*7 stayed home (Conley, DDR, Beal, Drummond, Dirk, Whiteside, Batum) |
Blake
Hayward Lowry Millsap |
| Starter/ Rotation |
Evans: 4/20%
Milsapp: 2/16% Ellis: 3/14% Jennings: 3/14% Mayo: 3/14% Calderon: 4/12% Martin: 4/12% Redick: 4/12% *4 stayed home |
Parsons: 3/24%
Deng: 2/16% Lance: 2/14% Frye: 4/13% Pau: 3/12% Marvin: 2/11% *6 stayed home
|
Matth.: 4/25%
Monroe: 3/24% Carroll: 4/21% RLopez: 4/19% Chandler: 4/19% Amir: 2/17% Ellis: 4/16% Rondo: 1/14% *8 stayed home |
Barnes: 4/25%
Parsons: 4/25% Dwight: 3/25% Wade: 2/25% RAnder.: 4/21% Crabbe: 4/20% Noah: 4/19% Biyom.: 4/19% Deng: 4/19% Turner: 4/19% Mozgov: 4/17% Mahinmi: 4/17% Pau: 2/17% Green: 1/16% Rondo: 2/15% Gordon: 4/14% Lin: 3/14% Lee: 4/13% Hill: 4/13% *8 stayed home
|
Holiday
Gallinari Ibaka Hill Teague Reddick Pau Monroe Rose Waiters Rondo Mills Johnson KCP (R) Noel (R) Porter (R) Ingles (R) Patterson (R) Hardaway (R) JaM Green (R) Roberson (R) Plumlee (R)
Solid Bench Clark Bojan Ilyasova Mirotic Iggy Gibson Livingston McGee Miles Evans Dedmon Tucker Simmons (R) Olynyk (R) |
| Summary:
*Players signed (changed teams) by category |
*1 superstar (1 changed teams)*3 fringe/all stars (3) *12 starters (8) |
*2 superstars (1)
*3 fringe/all stars (0) *12 starters (6) |
*4 superstars (0)
*6 all fringe/all stars (1) *16 starters (8) |
*2 superstars (1)
*8 fringe/all stars (1) *27 starters (19) |
*1 superstar
*4 fringe/all stars *22 starters *15 solid bench players |
One significant factor that impacts the market is the depth of the free agent pool, and in that respect 2017 is a mixed bag. There are only 5 all star level players (Paul, Hayward, Griffin, Lowry, and Millsap), and most will likely stay put. But there are 20+ starting quality players, many of whom could be available, and a large group of high quality bench players. This isn’t quite as deep as 2016 (many agents wisely planned ahead to have players hit free agency last summer), but it is still a solid collection of impact players.
When projecting players through comparison to prior free agent contracts it is important to think in terms of the contract’s percentage of the cap. A $10M contract in 2014 is not worth the same as a $10M contract now. Monta Ellis and OJ Mayo getting 14% of the cap in 2014 ($8M salaries), when they were considered low end starting guards, equates to a $14M contract now (think about Patty Mills, James Johnsons, etc.). Similarly, Demarre Carroll and Robin Lopez getting around 20% of the $70M cap in 2015, for solid starting players, equates to around $20M now (think of Jeff Teague, JJ Redick, etc.). Based on this data, I will attempt to project where free agent salaries are likely to end up this summer, to frame how we think about the Lakers’ options.
It’s safe to project that the 5 all stars and the top 3 RFAs (Noel, KCP, Porter) sign at or near the max. Six of their seven teams don’t have cap room (WAS, UT, LAC, DET, ATL, TOR), and those contracts thus would not eat up cap room if they stay put.
That leaves a significant amount of money that will be spent on non-star players. Based on prior years and market conditions, I project that Holiday, Hill, Ibaka, Gallinari, and Teague will get large salaries at 18-25% of the salary cap ($18-25M this year), similar to comparable free agents from prior summers (e.g., Barnes, Parsons, Ryan Anderson last year; Matthews and Robin Lopez the year before). Some of these players will be signed using cap room, and some using Bird rights for non-cap teams.
I also project that the other starting quality players (14 others on my list) will be paid between 12-19% of the cap (between $12-19M in starting salary), with an average of around $14-15M. This includes players like Patty Mills, James Johnson, Joe Ingles, JJ Redick, and Dion Waiters. This amount is in line with what players at that level were paid as a percentage of the cap in 2015.
High end bench players/fringe starters, like those on the list in the chart, typically go for between 5-10% of the cap ($5-10M starting salary), and several will get midlevel or above contracts this year in the $8-10M range. This includes intriguing players like Ian Clark, Ilaysova, Olynyk, etc.
These projections result in around 32 players signing midlevel or above contracts (5 all stars, 3 elite RFAs, 5 near max starters, 14 solid starters, and 5 bench players). Based on prior offseasons, we can expect around half of those will change teams, mostly from the starter/bench group, with the all stars and elite RFAs mostly staying put.
LAKERS FREE AGENCY STRATEGY
What do these market conditions mean for the Lakers this offseason? It means they need to be very, very careful, and not repeat the mistakes they made last year. The Lakers will be able to create as much cap room as they need for a max player, and enough to sign two players to $10M+ deals if desired. If there are opportunities to sign players at value then they should do it, of course, but free agency is not always the place to find value, as we’ve painfully learned.
I am not going to here think about which players the Lakers should and should not sign, but want to instead think more in terms of guiding principles. Not all free agents are cut from the same cloth, and certain categories return more on their investment than others. By virtue of the maximum salaries imposed by the CBA, the best players in the league are underpaid, and produce far more than they are paid. If the Lakers have an opportunity to sign one of the younger all stars (Hayward, Griffin) or one of the elite RFAs (Porter, KCP, Noel) they should probably do so. Those players are likely to produce at high levels and return solid value on their contracts for several years.
But if those players are not available, the Lakers may have a hard time in this market signing the players they like to contracts at good long term value, without seriously jeopardizing future cap flexibility. In this market, Holiday will likely cost $20-25M per year, and maybe get a max; JJ Redick will get $18-20M; Patty Mills will get $13-15M; James Johnson and Joe Ingles will get $10-12ish; Ian Clark will get $8-10M.
These are all players that would help and fit, but locking them into deals at those rates will also make it more difficult to secure true blue chip stars down the road when the core is ready. This is the cost of having signed Mozgov and Deng to over 30% of our cap for four years. I’d be thrilled to land Mills or Clark on the right deal, and the Lakers certainly need better players to win games and help with the core’s development. But we should also be aware of the cost of signing role players to contracts at that level, and be ready to roll over the cap room if the market conditions aren’t favorable to our long term plans.
The best front offices have avoided these traps and found creative ways to use cap room during the early stages of team building (e.g. Utah renting its cap space a few years ago to help GS obtain Iggy). The core will be much further along in the 2018 offseason, and that free agent class looks fairly Lakers friendly… While I am anxious to see the team improve next year, I am more anxious to build right, and I hope the team uses its cap room with an eye towards the long game.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Analyzing the past few free agency classes closely has also confirmed a few high level thoughts about free agency and team building:
First, with very limited exceptions (e.g., Hinkie’s 76ers), owners are going to spend the money they have. Even when this results in overpaying, teams almost always decide to use their cap room to add the best available players they can, at whatever price it takes to add them, rather than letting cap room go unused.
Second, the lion’s share of free agents who sign deals with new teams are some shade of overpaid as a result of market dynamics. These players are typically paid based on what they have done in the past, or based on one team being a bit over-optimistic about strong past play continuing, or improvement happening, or injuries not recurring. Because salaries are the result of the top bidder, rather than the average bidder, it just takes one team to drive a player’s salary higher than it should reasonably go, and there is always that one team. As a result, if you want a player, you have to outbid everyone, including the crazy Kings-ish owner who is irrationally invested in getting that particular player.
Third, and most importantly, history shows that free agency is not an effective way to build a roster. Because teams spend about the same in total salary (with a few exceptions like the Cavs), and the goal is to beat 29 other teams, good teams must get the most value out of their limited salary resources. Free agency has proven to be the least effective place to find value of the three methods for acquiring players (draft, trades, FA). Free agency is a place to add a final starter, or acquire bench depth, but not a place to build the foundation of your team.
Teams do everything possible to keep the best players in place and avoid them ever going to market. Consider, for example, the top 20 or so players in the league, and how few were obtained via free agency: Lebron and Durant are the only ones, and those acquisitions were exceptional circumstances. Most of the top 20 players were drafted, and a few were obtained via trade at times when their value was low (Harden, Paul, M Gasol, Isaiah, Cousins). The teams who have obtained significant players in free agency did so because they already had a strong core in place and the free agent saw a foundation they could complement (Aldridge to SAS, Horford to BOS, Anderson/Gordon to HOU, Iggy to GS etc.).
The lesson is to build your team first and foremost through the draft and shrewd trades, and then supplement the team through a free agent acquisition or two, not to count on free agency as the means to build the team from the outset. Furthermore, recent history shows that when mediocre or poor teams start making significant free agent additions, things often go poorly… (Parsons to MEM, Monroe to MIL, Turner to POR, Noah to NY, every FA Detroit or Orlando has ever signed, MozDeng, etc.). The best free agents want to go to the best teams, who are already built and ready, and the types of free agents that second and third tier teams can obtain often have warts that make the investments extremely risky.
What does this all mean? The Lakers shouldn’t put too many eggs in the free agency basket. The best path is to build the foundation slowly through the draft and well timed deals. And then, once the foundation is set, try to supplement through finding value deals in free agency.
Now, teams also have to be opportunistic and flexible, and the Lakers may have an opportunity to acquire Paul George or others in free agency in coming offseasons. This certainly seems to be a priority for the new front office. But I hope they are fully committed to getting the foundation set in place – developing the existing core, perfecting the scouting and training processes, improving the coaching, attracting first rate talent to each aspect of the organization. If George or other superstars are going to come, and if they are going to do something meaningful once here, it will be because they see something worth joining.
-Reed (@reed_nba)
Craig W. says
The stats just reinforce the notion that free-agency is not where good teams build; it is where they finish off their team. Most of our frustration is in the Lakers not properly participating in free-agency. When we did participate we certainly overpaid – big surprise there. What I get out of all this is that a free-agent must want to join us for us to go after them – meaning (IMO) we are not likely to sign any free-agent this summer. I suggest we start to acclimate ourselves to this probability, rather than spend so much time arguing about who we should target.
Richard says
If the Lakers are able to unload either Mozgov or Deng, that would be a successful summer in my opinion. Even if they don’t sign a big time FA. A trade I’ve been looking at would be Mozgov, Brewer and the 28th pick in exchange for Brook Lopez. Brooklyn gets another 1st rd pick (something they lack). Lakers unload the Mozgov contract and Brook will be a FA next summer, so if it doesn’t work out no harm done.
Darius Soriano says
I kept this little piece of trade speculation in here more as an example as to why we don’t really do trade speculation here in the comments. The Nets have a 1st round pick this year, in fact they have two. They will get Boston’s when the teams swap picks and they will have the Wizards’ as part of the Bogdonavic trade from February. Now, if you want to argue the Nets need a 3rd 1st round rounder (the 28th pick at that, the worst of the picks they would own) and would be willing to eat a ton of salary for it, I’m sure you could — it would just likely not be a great one.
R says
And I would humbly add that the Lakers would potentially end up with a one year rental for a first round pick. Wait a minute … Isn’t that why they are already potentially screwed?
Vasheed says
You roughly proposed that Brooklyn pay out an additional 30 million in salary to acquire a late first round pick. Imagine if that trade was reversed. Would you want the Lakers to pull the trigger?
Marco says
The Dengov monster will be here forever, eating our cap space!
R says
Marco, haven’t you heard? we aren’t supposed to complain about those deals anymore.
:0)
Carlos Ortega (@cyborgspider) says
I’ve always referred to them as Mozdeng, but I like yours better! Dengov henceforth!
A Horse With No Name says
Note to Darius on his twitter comments about Henry Abbott: I appreciate your acknowledgement and praise of him for mentoring and encouraging other writers. That said, in my mind he will be forever “hit man” Abbott, the guy who wrote utterly contemptible hit pieces on Kobe Bryant, and who generated lots of hits for espn by doing so. The karmic return has been served.
Concerned says
The Lakers have enough good starters/rotation guys what they need is a star or two to pull this thing together and move it forward. To think that the Lakers haven’t sniffed 30 wins in a season for four years running, have 6 core players 24 years or younger (5 of whom are on their original rookie deals) yet they don’t have cap space to outright sign one elite free agent. That is a damning statement and points to the uneasy situation the Lakers find themselves in.
rk says
Reed, what an amazingly thoughtful and thorough post. Many thanks.
KevTheBold says
The numbers make my head spin. I can only hope that the basketball gods again smile our way.
On another subject, am I the only one, who doesn’t give a care who wins the finals this year?
drrayeye says
Reed,
There are two ways for the Lakers to lose in free agent offers.
One is to bid too high
The other is not to bid at all.
Since the draft and trades must be part of Laker strategy, timing is absolutely critical.
The draft time is already known (June 23), and we will have about a month between knowing whether or not we have a first round choice and the draft–so that defines the first time contingent decision: trade pick (and/or picks) or select. A week after the draft, one can negotiate with free agents.
I believe that trading players begins on June 23–draft day–and continues all the way through to February, 2018–but that’s not entirely clear. If true, there is a very narrow one week window to get one or more trades done before talking with agents–and then many months to make both trades and signings.
I see frenetic activity for the Lakers during the last week of June–after that week, we’ll know a lot more.
Ray
Rob Pelinka says
drrayeye, actually, teams that are out of the playoffs (8 teams left) are eligible to officially engage in a trade, except the ending contracts and those undecided by player and team options.
John K Press says
I just want you all to remember, THE LAKERS ARE THE BEST FRANCHISE IN EVERY SPORT! And, even if they don’t dominate every year, they are always the best!
Rob Pelinka says
First of all, the Lakers need to land the top 3 pick for this offseason to be meaningful. Without the top 3 pick, we’ll have incentive to tank once more in 2018 but have to be good by 2019. That’s a predicament that isn’t easy to maneuver.
In terms of free agency, Nick Young is expected to opt out of his contract to sign something bigger and longer presumably from a team in need of a shooter. The Rockets wouldn’t mind another gunner since Swaggy had his best season as a pro under MDA.
Tarik Black is very useful and much-loved by the true-blue Laker bloods. I hope he is retained, but chances are he is let go in favor of 30M of space.
With the pick in (as well as the 28th), Nick Young and Tarik Black out, the Lakers are projected to have +/-25M in cap space.
Without making things too complicated, no trades supposedly, who would you target with that 25M?
drrayeye says
1. Blake Griffin or 2. Jrue Holiday I’d be very careful about the terms for Holiday
Carlos Ortega (@cyborgspider) says
Kyle Lowry, mayhaps? Older than Jrue but provides intensity and heart… and I don’t know if Toronto would dip into the 30-35m range to sign him
lil pau says
Great article, Reed (as always)! I’m trying to moderate my excitement/nerves until the NBA draft lottery on May 16. I feel like that potential top 3 pick really creates so many options for the Lakers that they don’t have otherwise (for example, it might make a player like Clarkson or JR expendable, or it could be used to move one of the two albatross contracts of last summer).
Really hope we get lucky a second a time.
Also, of all those FA names at the top right of the column, Blake is the guy I don’t want. I find his game so… awkward. I mean, he looks fine when getting the ball facing up on the elbow, but when he gets it with his back to the basket, it takes him so long to start his move that defenses can swarm if they wish to, but even when he’s covered by a single defender, he seems to take forever to back the defender down (multiple dribbles before he even starts to work towards the basket), but then – when he finally gets into the paint – he turns and sort of flicks the ball with absolutely no arc and like he’s trying to get it out of his hands as quickly as possible. He reminds me a lot of Dwight Howard in this way… he takes forever to release the shot, then flicks it up with minimal arc or wrist as if the basket were perpendicular to the floor, or as if he just realized there was a tenth of a second left on the shot clock. Add in his injury history, and his incessant whining…. I really, really don’t want that guy rocking the FB&G.
drrayeye says
When Blake was selected as #1 in the first round by the Clippers, there was no #2–he was that dominating an NBA candidate. Since that time, he’s improved individually on all aspects of his game: outside shooting, free throws, passing–and it has not gone unrecognized. He’s a top tier free agent for a reason. In addition to the Clippers being almost hysterical in their desire to keep him, IMO Blake will get many offers.
The question isn’t, “is Blake good enough to be a Laker?”
It’s “why would Blake even be willing to talk with the Lakers?”
and there are reasons. Staying in LA has it’s advantages. Even Kobe once explored the Clippers when he considered leaving the Lakers . . .
There would clearly be opportunities and risks–there always are–but even mere interest by Blake in the Lakers could be a big win for us now. A successful signing would attract others–not drive them away.
There are certainly aspects of Blake’s game as a Clipper that I don’t like for us–but I’m not sure that Blake as a Laker, separated from CP3, would be the same kind of player.
Concerned says
drrayeye:
Sound arguments regarding Blake. But I can not agree.
BG’s has become injury prone and the Lakers can’t afford to pay full price and then risk him missing significant time sitting on the sidelines. The long term issue is that his injuries will erode his athleticism which is a big part of his game.
Plus, his most recent injury is to his foot (toe). You’d kind of like him to be hitting free agency off of a healthy season instead of having to sign him off a season ending injury. This has buyer beware written all over it.
drrayeye says
Concerned,
We knew that Pau Gasol had plantar fascitis that kept him out at Memphis for most of a year when we traded for him long ago–and he’s still playing at a high level for the Spurs.
Steve Nash had no history of injury when we traded for him, and . . .
It’s a risky business.
The Clippers, who know Blake best, may offer him four or five years at more than 30M per year.
Fern says
i just want to say that seeing the Clippers choke again brings me overwhelming happiness. Doc Rivers is so overrated. That is all…
R says
Oh and how cool is it that the major shoe companies are falling all over themselves not to deal with Lonzo Ball because of his old man?
Fern says
The only thing missing is that he becomes a bust…
A Horse With No Name says
I hope the lakers draft someone else it they keep their pick. Not sure why the hate for the kid, though. Seems like a good kid–he can’t help the fact that his Dad is trying to live his life through his children. I predict he will part ways with his Dad as his business agent somewhere along the line.
Tra says
Fern, just wanted to say that I concur with your opinion about the Clips. Also, it’ll be interesting to see the movements of our co-tenants this summer in regards to CP3 and BG.
lil pau, spot on with your description of BG’s (suspect) game. I’ve never been a fan of his. As long as he, and his equally inept frontcourt mate, D. Jordan, continues to man the paint for the Clippers, they’ll continue to flame out in the playoffs. I also question their hearts/mental toughness. Bottom line, those 2 kats are just not cut from that cloth.
Sid Walker says
The perception of our Lakers has changed. Once again it’s being viewed in a positive light by desirable players. Paul George & even Ball stating they want to play for our team is a pleasant change of pace from not even being able to get meetings with guys previously. Once again the Lakers are considered relevant, something not to be overlooked.
R says
Cool that PG may want to come but L Ball won’t have much to say about the matter. He’ll go with whoever drafts him. Similarly, Okafor didn’t want to go to Philly, but they drafted him so there he went.
Robert says
“If the Lakers are able to unload either Mozgov or Deng, that would be a successful summer”
Well Richard may have broken the speculation rule, but unfortunately this part of his post is a good reminder of just how bad last Summer was.
R: Yea – the people who don’t want us to talk about those deals are the same people who last Summer said that Deng and Mosgov would provide veteran leadership and that simple minded, impatient fans could not understand that : )
Renato Afonso says
That view is a bit narrow, isn’t it? Who liked those deals? They were massive and everyone complained about them. While some argued that nobody wanted to sign with the Lakers, therefore the annual salary was not a big deal (meaning that we would only keep cap space), everyone complained about the length of those contracts. It’s the contract’s length that hinders the team from signing better players, no their value.
If Mozgov’s and Deng’s contracts were for 2 years + 1 (team option), we would be talking about how we could use those contracts to net a better or younger player on a longer contract, as they were expiring this year So, yeah, their contracts are bad and the Lakers are stuck with them. If they are as untradeable as everyone says they are, that means that barring waiving or strectching their contracts (and taking the cap hits Reed mentioned above) they will be part of the Lakers roster. That being said, would their ability as players or demeanor change if they had different contracts? Obviously not. They are both viable NBA rotation players who happen to play for the Lakers on bloated contracts due to the incompetence of the previous GM.
Let me question this, are they veterans that played on some good teams that went deep in the playoffs? Yes, they are. Do we have any indication from Deng and Mozgov that they’re not model professionals? We don’t have any indication that portrays them as bad professionals. They were benched for the last third of the season and they kept doing their job whenever they were called upon without complaining to the press. So, people judge their on court production by their contracts, which is understandable but tremendously unfair from a pure basketball point of view. You want your team to win as many games as possible. And if that is the goal, the coach must use all the players at his disposal to achieve that. If the Lakers didn’t tank for the draft pick (which is something so weird to see), Mozgov and Deng wouldn’t have that massive amount of DNP – coach decision.
Mozgov is probably the Lakers best center until Zubac’s body . You could argue that Zubac already surpassed Mozgov as a player, but you’ll end up with those two as option 1 and 2 at center if you’re being honest with yourself. I like Tarik Black a lot but he’s nothing more than an energy player to hustle and get some boards.
Deng is somewhat different. I praised him as a solution at SF but I was wrong. He can’t play any other position than the 4 and that is a big problem, due to Randle and Nance being part of the roster. This was adressed in post about Deng. Still, he can be useful to any NBA team.
Concerned says
In summary, regarding Mozgov and Deng: I think everyone agrees that they were signed for too many years and that their deals are likely untradeable (without tying them to a young asset with upside). The kicker (and the bigger problem) is that their contributions on the floor are minimal (Deng’s PER was 10.13 and Mozgov’s was 12.30). Playing them significant minutes will decrease the odds that the Lakers win.
RR says
That view is a bit narrow, isn’t it? Who liked those deals?
—
If you actually check the archives and look at the threads from when the deals were made, you will see pretty quickly that a better question to ask would be, “Who came out strongly against the deals at the time?” The culture at FBG has always been tilted towards optimism.
Darius Soriano says
This is a distinction without a difference.
RR says
Not even close. Anybody who actually cares about this issue should go back into the archives for July 2016 and start with your long post about the contracts, look at the comments underneath, and then decide for themselves.
Darius Soriano says
“Not even close”. You have a habit of a certain type of scorekeeping when it comes to the comments which is often funny to me. Pretty much everyone had strong criticisms of the Deng and Mozgov contracts. If people tried to find a silver lining in them, what does that matter? If most people say “this is bad” that’s not good enough? Do they have to say “it’s really bad” or not try to find ways it can be good, even if in very limited ways? This is silly and why I commented what I did. Everyone gets why the contracts are bad. Everyone. Seeking out ways to make those players effective doesn’t change the contracts being bad. Just as continuing to comment about how the contracts hamper team building isn’t bad. They both reflect the fact the contracts are on the books and are not changing. The fact that people get in pissing matches over this is annoying as hell.
KevTheBold says
Agree Darious, and would add, these constant attempts to squeeze drops of juice from old dried up lemons is comical.
Gaining satisfaction from ‘I told you so’ does nothing to elevate one to the status of a sage, especially when history is revisionist. It simply smacks of low self esteem combined with a mean streak.
Tar babu says
The only thing “bad” about those contracts is the fourth year….otherwise they reflect the reality of the new NBA: bad teams can’t sign good FAs and have to overpay to get marginal ones.
Besides, you don’t want to make the situation any worse with a desperation move to unload them…especially when you don’t have to.
CraigW says
Players we once crucified the front office for not being able to sign, but now are glad they didn’t…
Dwight Howard
Carmelo Anthony
Lemarcus Aldridge
Not sure what this says about wanting to sign someone this summer, but it is something that should give us pause as we clamor for a change.
Concerned says
It was Jim/Mitch that wanted to sign Carmelo and Aldridge. Most fans saw those signings as desperate and ill fitting moves that would only make the Lakers competitive as long as Kobe was Kobe — which in other words was just a very, very short window. Without Kobe those teams would be capped out and old.
In all honesty the Howard plan was destined for failure from the start. There were enough warning signs from his time in Orlando about a) his temperament: where he got a coach fired and b) his durability: he was injured and needed back surgery. Even if you think he was worth the initial gamble, it was a clear mistake by mid season and he should have been dumped at the trade deadline.
I liked Mitch but its apparent now that he was best suited to be an assistant to a strong GM. He had an eye for talent but he was incredibly old school — he had an obsession for older vets and would prioritize them over talented kids. Folks will always point to the Pau deal and yes, I do give him credit for that. But, the key to those teams were the fact that Kobe was still in his prime and PJ was on the bench.
The only good thing to say about Jim is that his tenure as head of basketball operations is over.
RR says
Like I said to Renato: if you are going to say stuff like this, then go back and check the archives. There was never great enthusiasm for signing Aldridge, very few people wanted Anthony, and even though the team has totally collapsed and the Lakers have generally been the worst defensive team in the NBA since he left, many people were happy to see Howard go. You seem to have a habit of conflating some amorphous group of talk radio fans yammering in your head with the actual regular posters here.
There are drive-by posters who say some of the types of things that you are describing, but for the most part, the regulars tend to favor patience with the young guys.
LT Mitchell says
Dwight Howard, Carmelo and Aldridge may or may not have worked out in Lakerland, but at the very least, they would have been tradeable assets, unlike Mosgov and Deng. Average free agents may have given the Lakers a meeting with an Aldridge or a Carmelo on board. Assets attract assets.
The same goes for Blake Griffin. Sure, there are concerns about injuries, but he is a major asset who has star power. As long as a no-trade clause is avoided, he would be an enormous signing for the Lakers. The question is, as Drrayeye noted, ” why would Blake even be willing to talk with the Lakers?”
Hopefully, Magic, Pelinka and ummm…Paul George will be reasons enough for Blake to join the Lakers.
Craig W. says
I guess I just don’t understand this ‘Blake Griffin’ desire. He doesn’t have deep playoff experience. He can disappear late in the 4th qtr. His game doesn’t fit what the Lakers are currently trying to run (particularly when we already have Mozgov & Zubac). He is not really a defensive plus.
He does get points and passes beautifully – great, he is better than Lou Williams. We are trying to get players who space the floor – big and otherwise – and Blake Griffin just is not going to do that for us.
A Horse With No Name says
Ditto Craig. I have no idea what LT is seeing over the last two seasons, but it’s not the game I’ve been seeing Blake Griffin play. He shows all the signs of a very athletic guy who relied on his athleticism to play at an elite level, and can no longer do so because of injuries and mileage. His “new” point forward skills aren’t good enough (inconsistent outside shot) to make up what he’s lost.
Tar Baby says
Agreed….I’m not mad at Griffin, but I also wouldn’t pay him $25m he’s likely to get.