Joined: 12 Apr 2001 Posts: 2017 Location: North Dallas
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:00 am Post subject: Assessing the Lakers' off-season
I am hoping to find the time to do off-season grades for all of the WC teams. I am going to post the Lakers separately as it needs to be much longer than other teams.
Lakers: A
A rebuilding team with a couple of aged former All-Stars that was ravaged by injuries last year
What should have been their goals
1. Acquire as much first round pick talent as possible
2. Maximize salary cap flexibility
Moves summary
* Hired coach Scott
* Re-signed UFA's Henry, Hill, Johnson and RFA Kelly to short contracts
* Re-signed UFA Young to a four-year contract
* Won the amnesty lottery for Boozer
* Signed UFA Davis to vet minimum contract
* Traded rights to Lishchuk to Houston for Lin and Houston's 2015 #1 pick
* Drafted Randle (7th)
* Bought the 46th pick in the draft and used it to draft Clarkson
* Lost Bazemore, Farmar, Gasol, Kaman and Meeks to free agency
Comments
At a high-level, the Lakers accomplished what they wanted to this off-season. Randle looks like a solid pick, Clarkson looks like he should have been drafted in the first round and the Lakers got Houston's 2015 #1 pick for basically nothing. Davis is an all upside signing. Farmar, Gasol and Kaman didn't fit the Lakers plans, Bazemore was made redundant by Clarkson and Meeks was made redundant by the return of Kobe. The Lakers signed players to contract to maximize their salary cap flexibility when Kobe retires and could get well under the salary cap next season by not re-signing Lin and not picking up Hill's option. It is when I look at the details that this off-season is so hard to judge.
There are three things that make this off-season so hard to judge. The first is that the team was devastated by injuries last season, which makes it hard to judge the quality of the team and players. The second is that they are trying to rebuild by giving second chances to young, once-promising players which is something I have never seen before. The third is that it is hard for me to see how all the pieces fit together.
Last season, the Lakers lost 319 games to injuries, tops in the league. Their three best players - Kobe, Gasol and Nash - played 6, 60 and 15 games respectively. Their three PG's at the start of the season - Nash, Blake and Farmar - were all injured for significant stretches of the season. Marshall started 45 games at PG and he was so bad that the Lakers waived him in the middle of summer league. With poor PG play and constantly changing line ups, nothing ever clicked for the Lakers.
The injuries made it hard to evaluate the players they were giving second chances to. Those players were Bazemore, Farmar, Henry, Johnson, Marshall and Young. You might add Hill to that list as he had been a bust in Toronto and Houston and then injured with the Lakers. With such chaos last season, it is hard to judge if any of them are worth keeping. The Lakers picked up some more young, once-promising players this off-season in Davis and Lin.
I feel like the Lakers have a lot of talent, but it is hard to see how it fits together. Kobe, Nash, Lin, Young and probably Randle and Clarkson are most effective when they are initiating the offense with ball in their hands. There is only one ball. Lin, Henry and probably Randle and Clarkson all want to slash to the basket with the ball.
In the post-Magic and the post-Shaq rebuild, the Lakers always had a clear rotation. This year Lakers are a total mess to me. Is Nash or Lin going to be the starting PG? Clarkson seems worthy of minutes, but he is behind Nash, Lin, Kobe and Young. Small forward is huge hole with the mediocre Johnson the only true SF on the roster. Who are the Lakers going to play there? I am pretty high on Kelly, but where does he fit in the big man rotation of Boozer, Randle, Hill and Davis? Adding to the confusion is that Boozer and Nash won't be back next season. Do you play them as much as you can so you can win as much as possible? Or do you minimize their minutes to develop young players? As the Suns get the Lakers first round pick this year unless it is 1-5, there is no value in tanking for a better draft pick.
Then there is Kobe. How do you solve a problem like Kobe? He will probably be heads and shoulders better than anyone else on the roster, but how much does he have in his tank? How much will he sacrifice his game to develop young players? Will he keep playing for the Lakers beyond this contract? I have seen very good arguments that Lin and Kobe's games aren't compatible. Do you look to trade Lin for someone who is a better fit with Kobe or do you keep Lin with an eye to designing the offense around him once Kobe is gone?
Coach Scott is the one who has to put all these pieces together. There are lots of reasons to be concerned about Scott. His last coaching stint in Cleveland was a disaster. I think he got the job because he already had a strong relationship with Kobe. Nothing is going to be successful this season without Kobe's buy-in.
For this off-season to really pay off, I think the Lakers need to establish one or two of the players that they are giving a second chance to as someone who has value and then trade him for someone who fits better. Hopefully something like the Cook and Evans for Ariza trade.
Another big dependency for how successful this off-season has been is how good of a coaching job Scott can do. Look at Phoenix - they had roster that looked weak, but Hornacek figured out how to get the pieces to fit together, got career-best seasons from a couple of the players and the Sun did far better than anyone predicted. I think the Lakers have the potential to be that kind of a surprise. They could also turn out to be a huge flop with only Kobe playing like a player who deserves to start in the NBA.
Edit: cleaned up some wording _________________ <-- My avatar is Margaret Nolan from one of the Carry On films. She was the girl who got painted gold in "Goldfinger". Thanks to CaliRyderX for identifying her.
Last edited by Dennis_D on Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:09 am; edited 1 time in total
Thanks for the post, but make no mistake, we were not entering free agency this season with the hopes of re-building. We went after LBJ, Melo, etc. To that end, we failed.
But the Lakers rebounded well enough IMO. Lin + 1st was a steal. Davis was a great pickup at the minimum. Boozer at $3m is fine. I feel we are caught between rebuilding and trying to make the playoffs, or the "treadmill."
So my grades:
1. initial non-rebuild phase: F.
2. rebounding from #1 and plan B free agency: B.
We have enough cap room to be players in free agency again next summer. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Seems like the grade of "A" was given, and then the reason why it was an A was written.
Overall grade for me is a C+. Tried and failed to land a major free agent. Lin deal was very good. Boozer for $3M is good. I like Randle and I like Clarkson.
The team is an odd hodgepodge of old vets on big contracts with young guys who need playing time. Not an ideal scenario by any stretch.
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 Posts: 46878 Location: Coming soon and striking at your borders.
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:19 am Post subject:
B
After Kobe got his contract, getting any big FA was gonna be quite a task. Nevermind the fact that the only one worth the effort (and money) was LeBron.
After that, getting Randle and Clarkson looks to be a good haul.
I didn't really have high expectations this off season, the only thing that really mattered was the draft IMO. _________________ *sighs*
After Kobe got his contract, getting any big FA was gonna be quite a task. Nevermind the fact that the only one worth the effort (and money) was LeBron.
After that, getting Randle and Clarkson looks to be a good haul.
I didn't really have high expectations this off season, the only thing that really mattered was the draft IMO.
If the Lakers got Melo, I would have been very disappointed.
Sure. But the Lakers FO were unabashed about their desires (and efforts) to get Melo. They tried and let's be honest, failed in that endeavor (though it was great to see the whole Lakers organization come together for that effort). _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 Posts: 46878 Location: Coming soon and striking at your borders.
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:44 am Post subject:
yinoma2001 wrote:
City_Dawg wrote:
If the Lakers got Melo, I would have been very disappointed.
Sure. But the Lakers FO were unabashed about their desires (and efforts) to get Melo. They tried and let's be honest, failed in that endeavor (though it was great to see the whole Lakers organization come together for that effort).
If failing to get Melo meant that things got smoothed over upstairs with everyone, i'll take that. Although I can't imagine the confusion and backlash that would have occurred if the Lakers didn't try to pursue Melo in the first place.
That said, a lot of stuff is riding on Clarkson and especially Randle panning out. If those guys are busts:
If the Lakers got Melo, I would have been very disappointed.
Sure. But the Lakers FO were unabashed about their desires (and efforts) to get Melo. They tried and let's be honest, failed in that endeavor (though it was great to see the whole Lakers organization come together for that effort).
If failing to get Melo meant that things got smoothed over upstairs with everyone, i'll take that. Although I can't imagine the confusion and backlash that would have occurred if the Lakers didn't try to pursue Melo in the first place.
That said, a lot of stuff is riding on Clarkson and especially Randle panning out. If those guys are busts:
What's done is done, but if the Lakers were admittedly and openly pursuing Lebron and Melo, and didn't get the job done, it is what it is.
While it's debatable whether the Lakers should have then used the cap space on other players, I am happy that they didn't blow it on guys like Bledsoe (injury concerns) or other poor free agents on long-term deals.
Basically, the team lives to fight (and recruit) another day. Randle/Clarkson/Kelly are on multi-year and cheap deals. Nice young nucleus. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
If the Lakers got Melo, I would have been very disappointed.
Sure. But the Lakers FO were unabashed about their desires (and efforts) to get Melo. They tried and let's be honest, failed in that endeavor (though it was great to see the whole Lakers organization come together for that effort).
If failing to get Melo meant that things got smoothed over upstairs with everyone, i'll take that. Although I can't imagine the confusion and backlash that would have occurred if the Lakers didn't try to pursue Melo in the first place.
That said, a lot of stuff is riding on Clarkson and especially Randle panning out. If those guys are busts:
What's done is done, but if the Lakers were admittedly and openly pursuing Lebron and Melo, and didn't get the job done, it is what it is.
While it's debatable whether the Lakers should have then used the cap space on other players, I am happy that they didn't blow it on guys like Bledsoe (injury concerns) or other poor free agents on long-term deals.
Basically, the team lives to fight (and recruit) another day. Randle/Clarkson/Kelly are on multi-year and cheap deals. Nice young nucleus.
Even if they don't pan out, all is not lost. We'll have a tremendous amount of cap space in 2 years to try again. Typically, in a rebuild, you wouldn't want to commit a huge contract to an older player. Kobe is a bit of a different case obviously, but normally, you'd have blown it up and gotten a bunch of young players to figure out who you want to keep.
We don't have that luxury, but we do have a little delayed flexibilty in 2 years.
If the Lakers got Melo, I would have been very disappointed.
Sure. But the Lakers FO were unabashed about their desires (and efforts) to get Melo. They tried and let's be honest, failed in that endeavor (though it was great to see the whole Lakers organization come together for that effort).
If failing to get Melo meant that things got smoothed over upstairs with everyone, i'll take that. Although I can't imagine the confusion and backlash that would have occurred if the Lakers didn't try to pursue Melo in the first place.
That said, a lot of stuff is riding on Clarkson and especially Randle panning out. If those guys are busts:
What's done is done, but if the Lakers were admittedly and openly pursuing Lebron and Melo, and didn't get the job done, it is what it is.
While it's debatable whether the Lakers should have then used the cap space on other players, I am happy that they didn't blow it on guys like Bledsoe (injury concerns) or other poor free agents on long-term deals.
Basically, the team lives to fight (and recruit) another day. Randle/Clarkson/Kelly are on multi-year and cheap deals. Nice young nucleus.
Even if they don't pan out, all is not lost. We'll have a tremendous amount of cap space in 2 years to try again. Typically, in a rebuild, you wouldn't want to commit a huge contract to an older player. Kobe is a bit of a different case obviously, but normally, you'd have blown it up and gotten a bunch of young players to figure out who you want to keep.
We don't have that luxury, but we do have a little delayed flexibilty in 2 years.
We can have up to $31m in cap space next summer if we renounce Lin or sign him (of course it would be 31m minus whatever Lin makes).
Keeping Randle was a key as he is a low cost, high value asset. I can't imagine the Lakers even thinking about trading him this past summer. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Joined: 12 Apr 2001 Posts: 2017 Location: North Dallas
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:18 am Post subject:
yinoma2001 wrote:
City_Dawg wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
City_Dawg wrote:
If the Lakers got Melo, I would have been very disappointed.
Sure. But the Lakers FO were unabashed about their desires (and efforts) to get Melo. They tried and let's be honest, failed in that endeavor (though it was great to see the whole Lakers organization come together for that effort).
If failing to get Melo meant that things got smoothed over upstairs with everyone, i'll take that. Although I can't imagine the confusion and backlash that would have occurred if the Lakers didn't try to pursue Melo in the first place.
That said, a lot of stuff is riding on Clarkson and especially Randle panning out. If those guys are busts:
What's done is done, but if the Lakers were admittedly and openly pursuing Lebron and Melo, and didn't get the job done, it is what it is.
While it's debatable whether the Lakers should have then used the cap space on other players, I am happy that they didn't blow it on guys like Bledsoe (injury concerns) or other poor free agents on long-term deals.
Basically, the team lives to fight (and recruit) another day. Randle/Clarkson/Kelly are on multi-year and cheap deals. Nice young nucleus.
I would have been disappointed as well if the Lakers had signed Melo. But if you look back at it, signing him would have cost the Lakers only the Lin trade. I am not sure that Lin has a future with the Lakers and the Houston pick is going to be very late in the first round. Signing Melo would have cost the Lakers salary cap flexibility, but would have made the Lakers a more attractive location for an all-star free agent when Kobe's contract ends.
There will be more all-star free agents. Rather than focus on signing a particular one, I think it is better to focus on developing a nucleus of quality young talent because that will make the Lakers an attractive place for an all-star free agent to sign. That is much more under the Lakers control. On that front, I think the Lakers were successful this off-season. _________________ <-- My avatar is Margaret Nolan from one of the Carry On films. She was the girl who got painted gold in "Goldfinger". Thanks to CaliRyderX for identifying her.
If the Lakers got Melo, I would have been very disappointed.
Sure. But the Lakers FO were unabashed about their desires (and efforts) to get Melo. They tried and let's be honest, failed in that endeavor (though it was great to see the whole Lakers organization come together for that effort).
If failing to get Melo meant that things got smoothed over upstairs with everyone, i'll take that. Although I can't imagine the confusion and backlash that would have occurred if the Lakers didn't try to pursue Melo in the first place.
That said, a lot of stuff is riding on Clarkson and especially Randle panning out. If those guys are busts:
What's done is done, but if the Lakers were admittedly and openly pursuing Lebron and Melo, and didn't get the job done, it is what it is.
While it's debatable whether the Lakers should have then used the cap space on other players, I am happy that they didn't blow it on guys like Bledsoe (injury concerns) or other poor free agents on long-term deals.
Basically, the team lives to fight (and recruit) another day. Randle/Clarkson/Kelly are on multi-year and cheap deals. Nice young nucleus.
I would have been disappointed as well if the Lakers had signed Melo. But if you look back at it, signing him would have cost the Lakers only the Lin trade. I am not sure that Lin has a future with the Lakers and the Houston pick is going to be very late in the first round. Signing Melo would have cost the Lakers salary cap flexibility, but would have made the Lakers a more attractive location for an all-star free agent when Kobe's contract ends.
There will be more all-star free agents. Rather than focus on signing a particular one, I think it is better to focus on developing a nucleus of quality young talent because that will make the Lakers an attractive place for an all-star free agent to sign. That is much more under the Lakers control. On that front, I think the Lakers were successful this off-season.
Understood. I'm not even arguing substantively (i.e., was Melo a good move or not), just pointing out the objective and undisputed fact that the FO had a stated goal but didn't achieve it.
That being said, rather than compound one mistake with another, they did the right thing and bowed out and lived to fight another day in 2015. As stated, failed in phase 1, did much better in phase 2. So overall, average (but I gave them a B overall ). _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
A very thoughtful write up. I don't see how you can still justify an A after all that though. As you stated very few if any of these parts fit.
Not to belittle the OP, because I respect everyone on this sites point of view (Except one imposter who will go nameless), but I stopped reading after I saw that "A". All the Lakers got were scraps and leftovers this off-season. I'd give them a C-...and that's being generous!
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144461 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:51 am Post subject:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Yeah, the summer was a tale of two efforts.
Phase 1: go for Lebron, Melo, etc.
Phase 2: if not, save cap space for 2015 free agency, get as many assets.
Phase 1 was an utter failure.
Phase 2 was done reasonably well.
If you technically combine both, should be about an average or C overall.
Phase I was a failure like me asking out Kristen Bell and getting turned down would have been a failure. The fact that Melo was even considering the Lakers at one point shocked the heck out of me. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Phase 2: if not, save cap space for 2015 free agency, get as many assets.
Phase 1 was an utter failure.
Phase 2 was done reasonably well.
If you technically combine both, should be about an average or C overall.
Phase I was a failure like me asking out Kristen Bell and getting turned down would have been a failure. The fact that Melo was even considering the Lakers at one point shocked the heck out of me.
Well, as the venerable John Wooden once said, don't mistake activity with achievement. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:55 am Post subject:
venturalakersfan wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Yeah, the summer was a tale of two efforts.
Phase 1: go for Lebron, Melo, etc.
Phase 2: if not, save cap space for 2015 free agency, get as many assets.
Phase 1 was an utter failure.
Phase 2 was done reasonably well.
If you technically combine both, should be about an average or C overall.
Phase I was a failure like me asking out Kristen Bell and getting turned down would have been a failure. The fact that Melo was even considering the Lakers at one point shocked the heck out of me.
A very thoughtful write up. I don't see how you can still justify an A after all that though. As you stated very few if any of these parts fit.
Not to belittle the OP, because I respect everyone on this sites point of view (Except one imposter who will go nameless), but I stopped reading after I saw that "A". All the Lakers got were scraps and leftovers this off-season. I'd give them a C-...and that's being generous!
That's because the OP gave a grade of A first. Then figured out how to write the narrative in accordance with the grade he wanted to give.
Would have felt like a more genuine assessment had it been done the other way round. Here are the facts, here is the grade.
Joined: 02 Jun 2009 Posts: 2415 Location: Far from home
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:15 am Post subject:
Off-season grade: C-
Decomposition:
Picking an acceptably good talent at position #7 merits no praise whatsoever. C
Failing to acquire a top 15 free agent talent in last Summer's market - at any price - is unquestionably a failure. F
Passing on Gasol and bringing in as little up front talent as Boozer and Davis signals another stalled effort at re-accumulation of complementary talent. D
Re-signing bits and pieces for small, short-term salaries simply signals another year's passage lacking a significant move to re-accumulate talent. The acquisition of Lin is the highest value transition move. Sacre, Hill, Johnson, Young, and Henry all return from last year's horrific club, and they together represent the complete depth of talent at center and small forward. Yipe. C
Last edited by Wilkes52 on Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:30 am; edited 1 time in total
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 1 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
).
