Author Topic: Lakers quietly shaping landscape of NBA?  (Read 9027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Lakers quietly shaping landscape of NBA?
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2015, 09:50:45 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
at this point, I think I'd prefer the Lakers to end up with the #5 pick this year for 3 primary reasons:
1. while they should get a pretty solid prospect at that spot, that player won't be nearly enough to move the needle much next year for LA
2. if they use that player/pick as a trade asset, even combined with Randle, it's unlikely to land a top player in a deal.  could get a good starter but a top player.  think of the package to get Love - #5 and Randle aren't getting a Love-level player.
3. the pick won't be conveyed to Philly in a draft where they'll likely have 2 top 6 picks in that figure to generate 2 starter-quality players.  Let LA get their player, Kobe return, and have LA end up missing the playoffs next year but end up at the tail-end of the lottery.  No desire to see Philly gain any benefit based on the mockery they're making of the league

Re: Lakers quietly shaping landscape of NBA?
« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2015, 10:32:55 PM »

Offline Adelaide Celt

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1370
  • Tommy Points: 206
at this point, I think I'd prefer the Lakers to end up with the #5 pick this year for 3 primary reasons:
1. while they should get a pretty solid prospect at that spot, that player won't be nearly enough to move the needle much next year for LA
2. if they use that player/pick as a trade asset, even combined with Randle, it's unlikely to land a top player in a deal.  could get a good starter but a top player.  think of the package to get Love - #5 and Randle aren't getting a Love-level player.
3. the pick won't be conveyed to Philly in a draft where they'll likely have 2 top 6 picks in that figure to generate 2 starter-quality players.  Let LA get their player, Kobe return, and have LA end up missing the playoffs next year but end up at the tail-end of the lottery.  No desire to see Philly gain any benefit based on the mockery they're making of the league

Yep pretty much my thoughts exactly. Would just be happy to see Okafor, Towns and Mudiay not going to LA.

I also don't want the Lakers to have any shot of getting Ben Simmons or Thon Maker.
NO AMOUNT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIPULATION, HORMONAL OR SURGICAL MUTILATION WILL EVER CHANGE A PERSON'S GENDER

Re: Lakers quietly shaping landscape of NBA?
« Reply #17 on: March 05, 2015, 12:53:43 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
at this point, I think I'd prefer the Lakers to end up with the #5 pick this year for 3 primary reasons:
1. while they should get a pretty solid prospect at that spot, that player won't be nearly enough to move the needle much next year for LA
2. if they use that player/pick as a trade asset, even combined with Randle, it's unlikely to land a top player in a deal.  could get a good starter but a top player.  think of the package to get Love - #5 and Randle aren't getting a Love-level player.
3. the pick won't be conveyed to Philly in a draft where they'll likely have 2 top 6 picks in that figure to generate 2 starter-quality players.  Let LA get their player, Kobe return, and have LA end up missing the playoffs next year but end up at the tail-end of the lottery.  No desire to see Philly gain any benefit based on the mockery they're making of the league

But it is a lottery... you can't just assume it will be the 5th. If they end up with 5th worst record don't they have at least a 40% of going top 3?

Re: Lakers quietly shaping landscape of NBA?
« Reply #18 on: March 05, 2015, 03:13:28 PM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
at this point, I think I'd prefer the Lakers to end up with the #5 pick this year for 3 primary reasons:
1. while they should get a pretty solid prospect at that spot, that player won't be nearly enough to move the needle much next year for LA
2. if they use that player/pick as a trade asset, even combined with Randle, it's unlikely to land a top player in a deal.  could get a good starter but a top player.  think of the package to get Love - #5 and Randle aren't getting a Love-level player.
3. the pick won't be conveyed to Philly in a draft where they'll likely have 2 top 6 picks in that figure to generate 2 starter-quality players.  Let LA get their player, Kobe return, and have LA end up missing the playoffs next year but end up at the tail-end of the lottery.  No desire to see Philly gain any benefit based on the mockery they're making of the league

But it is a lottery... you can't just assume it will be the 5th. If they end up with 5th worst record don't they have at least a 40% of going top 3?

The fifth-worst record has a 29% chance of ending up in the top 3.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Lakers quietly shaping landscape of NBA?
« Reply #19 on: March 05, 2015, 03:22:34 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
at this point, I think I'd prefer the Lakers to end up with the #5 pick this year for 3 primary reasons:
1. while they should get a pretty solid prospect at that spot, that player won't be nearly enough to move the needle much next year for LA
2. if they use that player/pick as a trade asset, even combined with Randle, it's unlikely to land a top player in a deal.  could get a good starter but a top player.  think of the package to get Love - #5 and Randle aren't getting a Love-level player.
3. the pick won't be conveyed to Philly in a draft where they'll likely have 2 top 6 picks in that figure to generate 2 starter-quality players.  Let LA get their player, Kobe return, and have LA end up missing the playoffs next year but end up at the tail-end of the lottery.  No desire to see Philly gain any benefit based on the mockery they're making of the league

But it is a lottery... you can't just assume it will be the 5th. If they end up with 5th worst record don't they have at least a 40% of going top 3?

The fifth-worst record has a 29% chance of ending up in the top 3.
I'd be perfectly fine with them getting the fourth worst record and being leap-frogged by the C's from the 8th position or higher  ;D

Re: Lakers quietly shaping landscape of NBA?
« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2015, 03:37:56 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
at this point, I think I'd prefer the Lakers to end up with the #5 pick this year for 3 primary reasons:
1. while they should get a pretty solid prospect at that spot, that player won't be nearly enough to move the needle much next year for LA
2. if they use that player/pick as a trade asset, even combined with Randle, it's unlikely to land a top player in a deal.  could get a good starter but a top player.  think of the package to get Love - #5 and Randle aren't getting a Love-level player.
3. the pick won't be conveyed to Philly in a draft where they'll likely have 2 top 6 picks in that figure to generate 2 starter-quality players.  Let LA get their player, Kobe return, and have LA end up missing the playoffs next year but end up at the tail-end of the lottery.  No desire to see Philly gain any benefit based on the mockery they're making of the league

But it is a lottery... you can't just assume it will be the 5th. If they end up with 5th worst record don't they have at least a 40% of going top 3?

The fifth-worst record has a 29% chance of ending up in the top 3.

TP for being less lazy than me.

Re: Lakers quietly shaping landscape of NBA?
« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2015, 04:30:02 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8113
  • Tommy Points: 549
at this point, I think I'd prefer the Lakers to end up with the #5 pick this year for 3 primary reasons:
1. while they should get a pretty solid prospect at that spot, that player won't be nearly enough to move the needle much next year for LA
2. if they use that player/pick as a trade asset, even combined with Randle, it's unlikely to land a top player in a deal.  could get a good starter but a top player.  think of the package to get Love - #5 and Randle aren't getting a Love-level player.
3. the pick won't be conveyed to Philly in a draft where they'll likely have 2 top 6 picks in that figure to generate 2 starter-quality players.  Let LA get their player, Kobe return, and have LA end up missing the playoffs next year but end up at the tail-end of the lottery.  No desire to see Philly gain any benefit based on the mockery they're making of the league

But it is a lottery... you can't just assume it will be the 5th. If they end up with 5th worst record don't they have at least a 40% of going top 3?

The fifth-worst record has a 29% chance of ending up in the top 3.

TP for being less lazy than me.
There's also a 45% chance of ending up with the 6th through 8th picks.  If they get very lucky, Philly could end up with the 1st, 6th, 11th and 19th picks in this draft.   

Re: Lakers quietly shaping landscape of NBA?
« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2015, 05:10:43 PM »

Online Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47135
  • Tommy Points: 2401
I don't see the Lakers as being all that relevant to NBA landscape.

I don't think they will be at the top of any of the top FAs wish lists. They will get an honourable mention as 3rd or 4th choice destinations but I don't think any of the top guys are ready to leave their team to go and play for the LA Lakers. I think the Lakers will be choosing from 2nd and 3rd tier free agent options.

When Shaq joined the team in 1996, the Lakers were coming off a 53 win season and were one of the top up and coming teams in the league. Top young guards with Nick Van Exel and Eddie Jones. A recent All-Star in Cedris Ceballos. A solid PF/C in Elden Campbell. They were clearly a title contender with the addition of a player like Shaq.

This current Lakers team is nothing like that one. They do not have one above average or even average starter on their team. The only young talent on their roster is Randle who hasn't played a minute yet. Kobe Bryant was dreadful before being shut down. Selfish and highly efficient on offense and lousy on defense. A nightmare to play with. This is a sub-25 win team. Even with another All-Star, they'll only be about .500 next year and you need around 50 wins to make the playoffs in the West so they'll be back in the lottery again.

I don't think other teams around the league are looking around worried about what the Lakers are doing. How they are positioning themselves. I think LAL is on the periphery of things. Not dictating / altering/ shaping the NBA landscape.

Their best opportunity will be to get really lucky in the lottery and jump up to a top 2-3 pick. Rarely do you ever see veteran free agents leave teams and pass up opportunities to play with more proven squads to play with an unproven rookie and I doubt that will change anytime soon since most rookies are 19 year olds these days who need several years of experience before being ready to lead a team in playoffs. So best chance will be to get that top 2-3 pick and then try to trade it for a proven star while retaining enough cap space (if possible? is Kobe's contract too big? It might be) to land another highly paid FA. That is about the only way I see LAL making it back to the playoffs next year (and still not a title contention). I think it's a major long shot for LA to be able to pull something like that off.

It's why I think they are on periphery of things and will be unable to attract a top FA.

Re: Lakers quietly shaping landscape of NBA?
« Reply #23 on: March 05, 2015, 05:31:53 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
I don't see the Lakers as being all that relevant to NBA landscape.

I don't think they will be at the top of any of the top FAs wish lists. They will get an honourable mention as 3rd or 4th choice destinations but I don't think any of the top guys are ready to leave their team to go and play for the LA Lakers. I think the Lakers will be choosing from 2nd and 3rd tier free agent options.

When Shaq joined the team in 1996, the Lakers were coming off a 53 win season and were one of the top up and coming teams in the league. Top young guards with Nick Van Exel and Eddie Jones. A recent All-Star in Cedris Ceballos. A solid PF/C in Elden Campbell. They were clearly a title contender with the addition of a player like Shaq.

This current Lakers team is nothing like that one. They do not have one above average or even average starter on their team. The only young talent on their roster is Randle who hasn't played a minute yet. Kobe Bryant was dreadful before being shut down. Selfish and highly efficient on offense and lousy on defense. A nightmare to play with. This is a sub-25 win team. Even with another All-Star, they'll only be about .500 next year and you need around 50 wins to make the playoffs in the West so they'll be back in the lottery again.

I don't think other teams around the league are looking around worried about what the Lakers are doing. How they are positioning themselves. I think LAL is on the periphery of things. Not dictating / altering/ shaping the NBA landscape.

Their best opportunity will be to get really lucky in the lottery and jump up to a top 2-3 pick. Rarely do you ever see veteran free agents leave teams and pass up opportunities to play with more proven squads to play with an unproven rookie and I doubt that will change anytime soon since most rookies are 19 year olds these days who need several years of experience before being ready to lead a team in playoffs. So best chance will be to get that top 2-3 pick and then try to trade it for a proven star while retaining enough cap space (if possible? is Kobe's contract too big? It might be) to land another highly paid FA. That is about the only way I see LAL making it back to the playoffs next year (and still not a title contention). I think it's a major long shot for LA to be able to pull something like that off.

It's why I think they are on periphery of things and will be unable to attract a top FA.

That is a little bit revisionist history. That team got knocked out of the first round pretty quick, Nick Van Exel was averaging 15 percent on 41% shooting and would not make an all star game until several years later. Eddie Jones averaged a little under 13 points and was still really developing his offensive game. They actually got a nice boost from the return of magic Johnson (who would retire again at end of season). Campbell was solid, but certainly nothing spectacular.

That was also a really down year for the west with one .500 team and one sub .500 team making the playoffs. Anyone saying Shaq went there for basketball reasons and not to build his film career seems to be misremembering things as they say...




 Also the words cedric ceballos is a pretty interesting guy to look up. He had three really impressive seasons with lots of points and high fg% and made 1 all star game. However, after his age 26 season he immediately became a role player and stayed that way for the rest of his career. Wonder what happened

Re: Lakers quietly shaping landscape of NBA?
« Reply #24 on: March 05, 2015, 05:45:31 PM »

Online Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47135
  • Tommy Points: 2401
I don't see the Lakers as being all that relevant to NBA landscape.

I don't think they will be at the top of any of the top FAs wish lists. They will get an honourable mention as 3rd or 4th choice destinations but I don't think any of the top guys are ready to leave their team to go and play for the LA Lakers. I think the Lakers will be choosing from 2nd and 3rd tier free agent options.

When Shaq joined the team in 1996, the Lakers were coming off a 53 win season and were one of the top up and coming teams in the league. Top young guards with Nick Van Exel and Eddie Jones. A recent All-Star in Cedris Ceballos. A solid PF/C in Elden Campbell. They were clearly a title contender with the addition of a player like Shaq.

This current Lakers team is nothing like that one. They do not have one above average or even average starter on their team. The only young talent on their roster is Randle who hasn't played a minute yet. Kobe Bryant was dreadful before being shut down. Selfish and highly efficient on offense and lousy on defense. A nightmare to play with. This is a sub-25 win team. Even with another All-Star, they'll only be about .500 next year and you need around 50 wins to make the playoffs in the West so they'll be back in the lottery again.

I don't think other teams around the league are looking around worried about what the Lakers are doing. How they are positioning themselves. I think LAL is on the periphery of things. Not dictating / altering/ shaping the NBA landscape.

Their best opportunity will be to get really lucky in the lottery and jump up to a top 2-3 pick. Rarely do you ever see veteran free agents leave teams and pass up opportunities to play with more proven squads to play with an unproven rookie and I doubt that will change anytime soon since most rookies are 19 year olds these days who need several years of experience before being ready to lead a team in playoffs. So best chance will be to get that top 2-3 pick and then try to trade it for a proven star while retaining enough cap space (if possible? is Kobe's contract too big? It might be) to land another highly paid FA. That is about the only way I see LAL making it back to the playoffs next year (and still not a title contention). I think it's a major long shot for LA to be able to pull something like that off.

It's why I think they are on periphery of things and will be unable to attract a top FA.

That is a little bit revisionist history. That team got knocked out of the first round pretty quick, Nick Van Exel was averaging 15 percent on 41% shooting and would not make an all star game until several years later. Eddie Jones averaged a little under 13 points and was still really developing his offensive game. They actually got a nice boost from the return of magic Johnson (who would retire again at end of season). Campbell was solid, but certainly nothing spectacular.

That was also a really down year for the west with one .500 team and one sub .500 team making the playoffs. Anyone saying Shaq went there for basketball reasons and not to build his film career seems to be misremembering things as they say...




 However, aside from the fact that Shaq made any team a contender, his go

The Lakers won 48 games the year before (1994-95). 53 games that year. They clearly had a good collection of talent. They were not a title contender but they were a young up and coming team with good talent that was only one big move away from becoming a title contender.

This Lakers team has 16 wins and 44 losses. They are likely to finish with less than 25 wins by season's end. They are one of the worst teams in the league.

There is a huge difference between those two situations.

One situation can easily sell a star on how close it is to challenging for a title. The other is near the bottom of the pile (league-wide) and has lots of work to do before it can even make the playoffs again. Nevermind challenge for a title.

Re: Lakers quietly shaping landscape of NBA?
« Reply #25 on: March 05, 2015, 05:58:25 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
I don't see the Lakers as being all that relevant to NBA landscape.

I don't think they will be at the top of any of the top FAs wish lists. They will get an honourable mention as 3rd or 4th choice destinations but I don't think any of the top guys are ready to leave their team to go and play for the LA Lakers. I think the Lakers will be choosing from 2nd and 3rd tier free agent options.

When Shaq joined the team in 1996, the Lakers were coming off a 53 win season and were one of the top up and coming teams in the league. Top young guards with Nick Van Exel and Eddie Jones. A recent All-Star in Cedris Ceballos. A solid PF/C in Elden Campbell. They were clearly a title contender with the addition of a player like Shaq.

This current Lakers team is nothing like that one. They do not have one above average or even average starter on their team. The only young talent on their roster is Randle who hasn't played a minute yet. Kobe Bryant was dreadful before being shut down. Selfish and highly efficient on offense and lousy on defense. A nightmare to play with. This is a sub-25 win team. Even with another All-Star, they'll only be about .500 next year and you need around 50 wins to make the playoffs in the West so they'll be back in the lottery again.

I don't think other teams around the league are looking around worried about what the Lakers are doing. How they are positioning themselves. I think LAL is on the periphery of things. Not dictating / altering/ shaping the NBA landscape.

Their best opportunity will be to get really lucky in the lottery and jump up to a top 2-3 pick. Rarely do you ever see veteran free agents leave teams and pass up opportunities to play with more proven squads to play with an unproven rookie and I doubt that will change anytime soon since most rookies are 19 year olds these days who need several years of experience before being ready to lead a team in playoffs. So best chance will be to get that top 2-3 pick and then try to trade it for a proven star while retaining enough cap space (if possible? is Kobe's contract too big? It might be) to land another highly paid FA. That is about the only way I see LAL making it back to the playoffs next year (and still not a title contention). I think it's a major long shot for LA to be able to pull something like that off.

It's why I think they are on periphery of things and will be unable to attract a top FA.

That is a little bit revisionist history. That team got knocked out of the first round pretty quick, Nick Van Exel was averaging 15 percent on 41% shooting and would not make an all star game until several years later. Eddie Jones averaged a little under 13 points and was still really developing his offensive game. They actually got a nice boost from the return of magic Johnson (who would retire again at end of season). Campbell was solid, but certainly nothing spectacular.

That was also a really down year for the west with one .500 team and one sub .500 team making the playoffs. Anyone saying Shaq went there for basketball reasons and not to build his film career seems to be misremembering things as they say...




 However, aside from the fact that Shaq made any team a contender, his go

The Lakers won 48 games the year before (1994-95). 53 games that year. They clearly had a good collection of talent. They were not a title contender but they were a young up and coming team with good talent that was only one big move away from becoming a title contender.

This Lakers team has 16 wins and 44 losses. They are likely to finish with less than 25 wins by season's end. They are one of the worst teams in the league.

There is a huge difference between those two situations.

One situation can easily sell a star on how close it is to challenging for a title. The other is near the bottom of the pile (league-wide) and has lots of work to do before it can even make the playoffs again. Nevermind challenge for a title.

If a prime Shaq joined the Lakers this offseason they would make the playoffs next year... if they convinced a few average veterans to join they would be a contender. Again, Shaq did not go there solely for basketball reasons. Betweeb 1994 and 1997 he was in the movies Blue Chips, Kazaam and Steel while also releasing a CD and a subsequent Video Game.

Are you also just forgetting the fact that he was leaving a Magic team that had made the conference finals and NBA finals the previous two seasons? He left that to go to a team that got knocked out in the first round? There are tons of arguments you could make about the Lakers not being able to get players now a days, but in this case you are actually making my argument for the opposite with a particularly bad example....

Re: Lakers quietly shaping landscape of NBA?
« Reply #26 on: March 05, 2015, 06:22:16 PM »

Online Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47135
  • Tommy Points: 2401
I don't see the Lakers as being all that relevant to NBA landscape.

I don't think they will be at the top of any of the top FAs wish lists. They will get an honourable mention as 3rd or 4th choice destinations but I don't think any of the top guys are ready to leave their team to go and play for the LA Lakers. I think the Lakers will be choosing from 2nd and 3rd tier free agent options.

When Shaq joined the team in 1996, the Lakers were coming off a 53 win season and were one of the top up and coming teams in the league. Top young guards with Nick Van Exel and Eddie Jones. A recent All-Star in Cedris Ceballos. A solid PF/C in Elden Campbell. They were clearly a title contender with the addition of a player like Shaq.

This current Lakers team is nothing like that one. They do not have one above average or even average starter on their team. The only young talent on their roster is Randle who hasn't played a minute yet. Kobe Bryant was dreadful before being shut down. Selfish and highly efficient on offense and lousy on defense. A nightmare to play with. This is a sub-25 win team. Even with another All-Star, they'll only be about .500 next year and you need around 50 wins to make the playoffs in the West so they'll be back in the lottery again.

I don't think other teams around the league are looking around worried about what the Lakers are doing. How they are positioning themselves. I think LAL is on the periphery of things. Not dictating / altering/ shaping the NBA landscape.

Their best opportunity will be to get really lucky in the lottery and jump up to a top 2-3 pick. Rarely do you ever see veteran free agents leave teams and pass up opportunities to play with more proven squads to play with an unproven rookie and I doubt that will change anytime soon since most rookies are 19 year olds these days who need several years of experience before being ready to lead a team in playoffs. So best chance will be to get that top 2-3 pick and then try to trade it for a proven star while retaining enough cap space (if possible? is Kobe's contract too big? It might be) to land another highly paid FA. That is about the only way I see LAL making it back to the playoffs next year (and still not a title contention). I think it's a major long shot for LA to be able to pull something like that off.

It's why I think they are on periphery of things and will be unable to attract a top FA.

That is a little bit revisionist history. That team got knocked out of the first round pretty quick, Nick Van Exel was averaging 15 percent on 41% shooting and would not make an all star game until several years later. Eddie Jones averaged a little under 13 points and was still really developing his offensive game. They actually got a nice boost from the return of magic Johnson (who would retire again at end of season). Campbell was solid, but certainly nothing spectacular.

That was also a really down year for the west with one .500 team and one sub .500 team making the playoffs. Anyone saying Shaq went there for basketball reasons and not to build his film career seems to be misremembering things as they say...




 However, aside from the fact that Shaq made any team a contender, his go

The Lakers won 48 games the year before (1994-95). 53 games that year. They clearly had a good collection of talent. They were not a title contender but they were a young up and coming team with good talent that was only one big move away from becoming a title contender.

This Lakers team has 16 wins and 44 losses. They are likely to finish with less than 25 wins by season's end. They are one of the worst teams in the league.

There is a huge difference between those two situations.

One situation can easily sell a star on how close it is to challenging for a title. The other is near the bottom of the pile (league-wide) and has lots of work to do before it can even make the playoffs again. Nevermind challenge for a title.

If a prime Shaq joined the Lakers this offseason they would make the playoffs next year... if they convinced a few average veterans to join they would be a contender. Again, Shaq did not go there solely for basketball reasons. Betweeb 1994 and 1997 he was in the movies Blue Chips, Kazaam and Steel while also releasing a CD and a subsequent Video Game.

Are you also just forgetting the fact that he was leaving a Magic team that had made the conference finals and NBA finals the previous two seasons? He left that to go to a team that got knocked out in the first round? There are tons of arguments you could make about the Lakers not being able to get players now a days, but in this case you are actually making my argument for the opposite with a particularly bad example....

Right, but does Shaq leave that Orlando team to join the LA Lakers if the Lakers are coming off a 20-25 win season?

I cannot see that happening.

Shaq went to the Lakers because they offered him everything he was looking for:

(1) opportunity to win
(2) the most money
(3) weather, lifestyle and non-basketball opportunities.

Re: Lakers quietly shaping landscape of NBA?
« Reply #27 on: March 05, 2015, 06:45:23 PM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
The Lakers are going to be the team that every free agent points to as leverage so they can get more money out of the team they really want to play for.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Lakers quietly shaping landscape of NBA?
« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2015, 07:31:48 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
I don't see the Lakers as being all that relevant to NBA landscape.

I don't think they will be at the top of any of the top FAs wish lists. They will get an honourable mention as 3rd or 4th choice destinations but I don't think any of the top guys are ready to leave their team to go and play for the LA Lakers. I think the Lakers will be choosing from 2nd and 3rd tier free agent options.

When Shaq joined the team in 1996, the Lakers were coming off a 53 win season and were one of the top up and coming teams in the league. Top young guards with Nick Van Exel and Eddie Jones. A recent All-Star in Cedris Ceballos. A solid PF/C in Elden Campbell. They were clearly a title contender with the addition of a player like Shaq.

This current Lakers team is nothing like that one. They do not have one above average or even average starter on their team. The only young talent on their roster is Randle who hasn't played a minute yet. Kobe Bryant was dreadful before being shut down. Selfish and highly efficient on offense and lousy on defense. A nightmare to play with. This is a sub-25 win team. Even with another All-Star, they'll only be about .500 next year and you need around 50 wins to make the playoffs in the West so they'll be back in the lottery again.

I don't think other teams around the league are looking around worried about what the Lakers are doing. How they are positioning themselves. I think LAL is on the periphery of things. Not dictating / altering/ shaping the NBA landscape.

Their best opportunity will be to get really lucky in the lottery and jump up to a top 2-3 pick. Rarely do you ever see veteran free agents leave teams and pass up opportunities to play with more proven squads to play with an unproven rookie and I doubt that will change anytime soon since most rookies are 19 year olds these days who need several years of experience before being ready to lead a team in playoffs. So best chance will be to get that top 2-3 pick and then try to trade it for a proven star while retaining enough cap space (if possible? is Kobe's contract too big? It might be) to land another highly paid FA. That is about the only way I see LAL making it back to the playoffs next year (and still not a title contention). I think it's a major long shot for LA to be able to pull something like that off.

It's why I think they are on periphery of things and will be unable to attract a top FA.

That is a little bit revisionist history. That team got knocked out of the first round pretty quick, Nick Van Exel was averaging 15 percent on 41% shooting and would not make an all star game until several years later. Eddie Jones averaged a little under 13 points and was still really developing his offensive game. They actually got a nice boost from the return of magic Johnson (who would retire again at end of season). Campbell was solid, but certainly nothing spectacular.

That was also a really down year for the west with one .500 team and one sub .500 team making the playoffs. Anyone saying Shaq went there for basketball reasons and not to build his film career seems to be misremembering things as they say...




 However, aside from the fact that Shaq made any team a contender, his go

The Lakers won 48 games the year before (1994-95). 53 games that year. They clearly had a good collection of talent. They were not a title contender but they were a young up and coming team with good talent that was only one big move away from becoming a title contender.

This Lakers team has 16 wins and 44 losses. They are likely to finish with less than 25 wins by season's end. They are one of the worst teams in the league.

There is a huge difference between those two situations.

One situation can easily sell a star on how close it is to challenging for a title. The other is near the bottom of the pile (league-wide) and has lots of work to do before it can even make the playoffs again. Nevermind challenge for a title.

If a prime Shaq joined the Lakers this offseason they would make the playoffs next year... if they convinced a few average veterans to join they would be a contender. Again, Shaq did not go there solely for basketball reasons. Betweeb 1994 and 1997 he was in the movies Blue Chips, Kazaam and Steel while also releasing a CD and a subsequent Video Game.

Are you also just forgetting the fact that he was leaving a Magic team that had made the conference finals and NBA finals the previous two seasons? He left that to go to a team that got knocked out in the first round? There are tons of arguments you could make about the Lakers not being able to get players now a days, but in this case you are actually making my argument for the opposite with a particularly bad example....

Right, but does Shaq leave that Orlando team to join the LA Lakers if the Lakers are coming off a 20-25 win season?

I cannot see that happening.

Shaq went to the Lakers because they offered him everything he was looking for:

(1) opportunity to win
(2) the most money
(3) weather, lifestyle and non-basketball opportunities.

You just keep repeating things, some of which are factually incorrect. For starters, he took less money to go to LA than Orlando offered so your number 2 is not something that even happened

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/19/sports/pro-basketball-lakers-get-o-neal-in-7-year-contract.html

Second he went to a worse team! The Lakers were knocked out in the first round and were losing a very effective player in Magic Johnson. They were not at a better place for immediate winning than an Orlando team coming off a finals appearance and a conference finals season in which they went 60-22.

The Magic had a fellow superstar in Anfernee Hardaway (this was all pre-injury) a lock solid big man in Horace Grant (Better than Elden Campbell) Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott were actually performing very similarly with Scott being the best scorer of the group.

Can you just admit that Shaq is a horrible example for what you are trying to argue? He came to LA for several reasons money and being on a contender were not the top ones.

Re: Lakers quietly shaping landscape of NBA?
« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2015, 08:17:15 PM »

Online Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47135
  • Tommy Points: 2401
Right, but does Shaq leave that Orlando team to join the LA Lakers if the Lakers are coming off a 20-25 win season?

I cannot see that happening.

Shaq went to the Lakers because they offered him everything he was looking for:

(1) opportunity to win
(2) the most money
(3) weather, lifestyle and non-basketball opportunities.

You just keep repeating things, some of which are factually incorrect. For starters, he took less money to go to LA than Orlando offered so your number 2 is not something that even happened

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/19/sports/pro-basketball-lakers-get-o-neal-in-7-year-contract.html

Second he went to a worse team! The Lakers were knocked out in the first round and were losing a very effective player in Magic Johnson. They were not at a better place for immediate winning than an Orlando team coming off a finals appearance and a conference finals season in which they went 60-22.

The Magic had a fellow superstar in Anfernee Hardaway (this was all pre-injury) a lock solid big man in Horace Grant (Better than Elden Campbell) Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott were actually performing very similarly with Scott being the best scorer of the group.

Can you just admit that Shaq is a horrible example for what you are trying to argue? He came to LA for several reasons money and being on a contender were not the top ones.

Trim back the build up of quotes there ....

(1) You are side-stepping my point. I am not comparing the 1996 Orlando vs 1996 LA Lakers. I am comparing the LA Lakers of 1996 to the LA Lakers of 2015.

Orlando were a title contender with Shaq.
LAL were a mid-seed playoff team without Shaq and a title contender with Shaq.

I am saying (or at least trying to! I might be doing a bad job of it) that Shaq would not have left Orlando if the new team he was joining wasn't also a title contender. That Shaq would not join a team that won only 20-25 games the year before and had little talent on it's roster.   

This 2015 LA Lakers team is not a title contender with one move. They are a 20-25 win team. One major star joining their team gets them to 40 wins (.500 team). An MVP like LeBron or Shaq gets them 45-50 wins which is only a borderline playoff team in the West (and a first round loss even if they make it).

My point is = it is much easier to convince a top FA to join when you can clearly show him that he will have a chance a play for a Championship there. The 1996 Lakers had that. They were 50 win team. The 2015 Lakers do not have that. They are a 20-25 win team.

(2) Orlando low balled Shaq early in the negotiations. Orlando opened negotiations at $54 million over 4 years. The Lakers opened at $97 million. Orlando raised to $88 million. LA went away and freed up more cash. Then LA offered up $121 million. Orlando balked. Hesitated. And it wasn't until the very late in the negotiations -- when Shaq had all but decided he was going to LA -- that Orlando finally decided to stand up and match LA's offer (by offering less money with more cash up front and no state taxes to match or even better LAL's offer if you believe Orlando).

LA Lakers put the most money on the table throughout negotiations until the final moment when Orlando finally decided to match the offer. Who knows what would have happened if Orlando had not have screwed up the early part of the contract negotiations.

Money and bad negotiating tactics by Orlando's front office and owner definitely played a role in how everything played out.