Official Whine, Moan, Complain Thread 19/20-CLOSED "WE CHAMPS!"

If the Lakers win only 27, then based on current standings they'd have the 3rd worst record. Yeah there is luck involved in the lottery but there is also math that says the Lakers have a 46.9% chance of keeping their pick. So yeah, it's slightly worse than a coin flip but still better odds than suggesting it's "only luck". Player development is great and would be a successful aspect to the season but if you win only 27 games, in a season after you spent a boatload of $ on aging veterans, and you end up losing pick #4, #5 or #6 - based on a trade for an aging veteran - that's a blow to any level of success for me.

 

That's good to know. If we have any shot at any free agent over the summer that is something that has to be considered. That's a 100 million owed to 2 players after this season that give us minimal production. Ugh.

 

The goal of the season was to make the playoffs. As I've noted, this was the final year of Jim Buss' deadline to contend or he quits and the offseason moves were explicitly a reflection of that goal. You don't do the moves the Lakers did in the offseason if youth development was the primary goal. The Lakers' did have some focus on youth development to start - obviously you can't not do that when you have this much young talent on the roster - but it grew over the course of the season based on the team not winning games and the veterans not being particularly good. So that is why youth development in itself is not enough of a sign of success in a 27 win season when the main goal was an abject failure. That's why I think keeping the pick is essential to calling the season a success because at least your failures in your primary goal led to a tangible valuable asset. I never said anything about losing more games for the best chance to keep the pick as being part of the measure of success. We're specifically talking about 27 wins here. I never said "Well, the Lakers should maybe win only 24 to keep the pick" or anything like that. The lottery is just chance but the chances are directly driven from your record. It's not randomized luck. It's a specific percentage and a 27 win record gets you slightly less than coin flip odds at keeping the pick. So losing it is a blow to the success of the season because you miss out on a huge opportunity that came along with having such a terrible record.

 

I'm not having it both ways. The direction of the season has changed. The Lakers clearly made an effort to win this season as evidenced by their offseason moves adding multiple veterans - including two costly ones - to their young core. Fans may not have expected a playoff push but clearly the Lakers made a legitimate run at it with expectations that did not consist of winning less than 30 games. It didn't pan out, losses surmounted and now they are shifting to a youth movement. So if we're talking about the end result being a 27 win season where the Lakers have a real shot at keeping the pick, then yeah it's a blow to the success of the season that they not only failed in their primary goal but they couldn't even obtain the potential benefit from how badly they missed said goal. Personally, I'm not concerned with winning this season. The difference between 30 wins, 27 win, 24 wins whatever is negligible big picture. I'll be no less disappointed in 20 wins than I would be 29 wins. Who cares. The Lakers miss the playoffs either way. As long as whatever win total is obtained by the players on the roster giving 100%, that's what counts. I too am concerned with our your core improving and putting a better product on the table.... beyond this season. Keeping the pick is a significant piece that would help with the latter. To just say you wouldn't complain if we kept it a serious diminishing of the value. We're talking about a Top 3 pick here. The draft may not be the equivalent of the 2003 draft but it's a very valuable piece. If the Lakers are going to toil through a miserable 27 win season where the major free agent acquisitions didn't pan out, I just don't see it being truly a success unless they achieve the benefits that teams with bad records generally get - and that is not just the chance to commit to developing youth but getting a top pick along with it.

 

It wasn't a blow out and the last few mins of the 4th quarter.

 

Let's stop



And hug it out

 

It's a lottery. Cavs had the 9th worst record when they got the #1 and got Wiggins. Frankly, how many more young players does the team need. Play to win, win 27-28 games and hope the team either gets a top 3 or gets a 7 or 8 pick and finally lets forget the Nash trade forever.

 

Kinda like this after too long ......

 

Nick and Lou having the majority of huge games this season is not the ideal thing ... I'd prefer more from the youngins

 

i agree that having young or lou being the key guy in most wins has been sort of a downer. of course, that doesn't mean i want to trade them so we lose more. i was just hoping russell or randle would do more to impact the w column.

 

I never said I wanted the Lakers to lose games. Do you see me going around complaining the Lakers have won 2 of their last 3? In your post you said you'd find 27 wins to be a successful season but low 20's to be disappointing. I am saying there is absolutely no difference to me between the two because the outcome in terms of the playoffs is still the same. I said I am in favor of youth development as well and that what counts is that whatever win total is obtained by the players on the roster giving 100%.

I don't consider a 27 win season on its own to be successful. The excuse of injuries is not enough for me. Yeah, Russell and Nance missed some games and Randle a few but they haven't dealt with any major injury and have had the majority of their core playing. Heck, the top scorer has played all 56 games - that being Lou. The Lakers invested in win-now moves this past offseason (Deng, Moz, Calderon, re-signing Black etc), they've gotten solid production from vets in Lou/Swaggy and while the talent is young, it consists of 3 high draft picks - including Russell/Randle who played well enough the 2nd half of last season that we had legit expectations this season that they'd take a step forward and be hugely impactful.

Fans may not have bought into the idea of making the playoffs but I'm 100% of the opinion the Lakers did and I am factoring that into the equation of what is a "success". So for me, I am looking at the success of the season based not on what I expected the Lakers to accomplish but what the Lakers tried to accomplish. 27 wins means abject failure. As such, for me, to consider the season a success they need to reap all the benefits of said failure and that means both developing the young talent and, assuming that 27 wins means having the 3rd worst record in the NBA, keeping the pick. Youth development in itself is not enough for me to consider a lost season a success. The Lakers were going to develop their youth regardless. Probably not to this extent with Zu/Ingram but the youth were always an integral part of the plan this season.

It is a lottery and teams do move up. Of course it's a lottery that has specific math attached to it which gives better odds to some than others. We're not talking about Armageddon where the odds are the same that one person and has to stay on the asteroid and die.
Last year: Worse 3 records were the Sixers, Lakers and Nets
Last year: Top 3 picks were the Sixers, Lakers and C Bags (via the Nets)
Since you bring up Wiggins, the Wolves had the 1st worst record when they got the #1 pick and got Towns. In the Wiggins draft, the Cavs moved up but Bucks/Sixers had the worst 2 records and stayed in the Top 3. This is the math favoring those who have more balls.

This discussion is based on the premise the Lakers finish with 27 wins and that it would likely mean the 3rd worst record in the NBA. I'm not saying don't play to win. I'm not saying lose more games to get more balls. I'm working with a specific set of wins/lottery odds here. So this discussion isn't about tanking. It's about how you'd feel with a specific outcome. 27 wins + keeping pick versus 27 wins and not keeping pick.

As far as how many more young players the team needs, if it's high end talent, you can never have enough. I don't think there is a GM out there in any situation that says "Nah, I'm cool, I don't need a Top 3 pick". If the team is deemed too young, that's not an issue. You can make trades. Whether you trade the pick or making the pick and trading another young player on your team. Having the pick certainly gives Magic more firepower when he inevitable makes a run at trading for a superstar,

I'm not as nonchalant about this pick as others where it's "If we keep it, great. If we don't, that's fine too". It's gonna be gut-wrenching to me if the Lakers finish with the 3rd worst record and don't keep the pick. Perhaps that is why I consider it a key part of calling a 27 win season a success on any measure.

 

"Always next seaason" thats the moto for all perenially bad teams...which is what this franchise has become