Baxter Holmes Series on the Lakers' Rebuild

[BDeCosta26]

Los Angeles, Russell, Randle, Clarkson and 70 million in cap room this summer make the Lakers a team you can never really rule out.   I have a hard time envisioning them being bad for an extended period of time.

They're the Lakers, so sure of course they could sign some Durant level FA and be right back in the mix. But that guy is gonna have to WANT to come to LA regardless of their current state. A couple prospects and cap space aren't going to get you a guy like KD unless he cares more about playing in LA than playing on the right team for his career. A lot of guys aren't thinking that way anymore.

But literally everything in LA hinges on Russell and Randle. At least one if not both of those guys don't become genuine bonafide stars, they're in BIG trouble.

Think about this, if Russell becomes an Evan Turner like player and Randle becomes a good energy/rebounding big who's nothing more than a decent bench or passable starting big, then what? They don't own their pick this year, and with Kobe leaving and no clear "future stars" on the roster, it's much more likely they don't sign that marquee FA than they do. Then they're up SC without a paddle.

It comes back to the whole "who's rebuild is better" question. It's clearly Boston at this point (Obviously very dependent on whether Russell/Randle/Clarkson or Smart/KO/Young/Rozier/Hunter/Mickey can develop into a "star") because of flexibility. Rebuilding a team into a contender in the NBA is really hard. There's no fool-proof way to do it. Boston has a gaggle of under-26 talent, most of which hasn't even started to show their ceiling in this league, they have a ton of extra 1st round and early 2nd round picks to use including their own to add more or trade, and a ton of cap flexibility to use if the chance arises. They have a good hand to play in every avenue towards improvement. If Russell/Randle don't pan out perfectly for LA, they're pretty much screwed. I don't think it's even debatable, Boston is in a much better place going forward than LA unless Russell and Randle both turn out to be real "stars " (which we can all agree is less likely than not, just because they're so few stars in the NBA)

[Who]

The franchise with the second-most championships in NBA history (16) has reached the playoffs 60 times in 67 seasons and missed the postseason in consecutive years only twice. Its longest title drought since migrating to Los Angeles in 1960? Eleven seasons. And even that "rough" stretch featured 10 playoff berths and two trips to the NBA Finals.

That is amazing.

[Moranis]

The franchise with the second-most championships in NBA history (16) has reached the playoffs 60 times in 67 seasons and missed the postseason in consecutive years only twice. Its longest title drought since migrating to Los Angeles in 1960? Eleven seasons. And even that "rough" stretch featured 10 playoff berths and two trips to the NBA Finals.

That is amazing.

and that is why the Lakers, despite not having the titles of the Celtics, are the NBA's greatest franchise.

[MBunge]

The franchise with the second-most championships in NBA history (16) has reached the playoffs 60 times in 67 seasons and missed the postseason in consecutive years only twice. Its longest title drought since migrating to Los Angeles in 1960? Eleven seasons. And even that "rough" stretch featured 10 playoff berths and two trips to the NBA Finals.

That is amazing.

and that is why the Lakers, despite not having the titles of the Celtics, are the NBA's greatest franchise.

I think you have to factor in how horrible the Western Conference has been in the history of the NBA.

Mike

[Eddie20]

Los Angeles, Russell, Randle, Clarkson and 70 million in cap room this summer make the Lakers a team you can never really rule out.   I have a hard time envisioning them being bad for an extended period of time.

1. Everyone has cap room this summer
2. Russell, Randle, Clarkson don't mean much to free agents
3. The Lakers have had two free agents bolt for less money (Gasol & Howard) and the best FA they signed this summer WITH Russell, Randle, Clarkson, and max money available was Lou Williams.
4. Scott is the coach
5. Kobe not only fails to attract players, but repels them
6. Lakers are afterthoughts to the Clippers

I'm assuming Kobe leaves.  Every team has cap space, but not every team is in Los Angeles.  If one or two of their young guys develops, it could end up a destination sooner rather than later.

lb, you have once again fallen into your irritating habit of making **** up that supports your pre-existing preference for endless pessimism about the celtics and endless optimism about other teams. your posts are so much better when you don't do this. please stop.

Absolutely. That's my issue as well. If you want to be negative at least be consistent with that negativity. Instead all you hear is how Smart is a marginal talent, the C's have a bunch of average players, the Nets picks will not be high picks, the Sixers and Lakers have ultra bright futures, and the Knicks are likely to make the playoffs. It's all based on teams that we have rivalries with (LA, Sixers, and Knicks) or have a need for them to be bad (Nets), but nothing is ever mentioned about teams with legitimate futures (Jazz, Wolves, etc.). Why? Because they won't draw any ire from C's fan. The agenda is clear.

[sofutomygaha]

I could have sworn I heard somewhere that Durant is going to join the Lakers. 

[PhoSita]

The franchise with the second-most championships in NBA history (16) has reached the playoffs 60 times in 67 seasons and missed the postseason in consecutive years only twice. Its longest title drought since migrating to Los Angeles in 1960? Eleven seasons. And even that "rough" stretch featured 10 playoff berths and two trips to the NBA Finals.

That is amazing.

and that is why the Lakers, despite not having the titles of the Celtics, are the NBA's greatest franchise.

it's a great brand, a great arena, a great location, and a great list of stars who have played there (and sat in the stands).

i'm not sure how much the Lakers franchise really comes into it.

for me, what the Spurs have done over the last 25 years is a lot more impressive, and has more to do with the actual organization and how it is run.

the Lakers get credit for all the things they accomplished in the 60s and 70s, as do the Celts.

to be honest, i don't really care about what happened in the nba that far back (the league is completely different now), and for me even the 80s is history, albeit important history.

if you want to talk about how an NBA team is constructed, managed, and coached, for me the conversation has to start with the Spurs.  that's the gold standard.

[apc]

I could have sworn I heard somewhere that Durant is going to join the Lakers. 

Even if Durant wanted to go to the Lakers, it will not happen now, just so Stephan Smith doesn't get to say 'i told you so'