I'm not sure how these guys are calculating "projected cap space" but it does sort of factor in to what you're saying: https://basketball.realgm.com/analysis/249237/Projected-2018-Cap-Space-For-All-30-NBA-Teams Dallas might be less threatening than we assume. It seems to me the most overt threats might be Atlanta, Chicago, or (ironically) Indiana. I could see Indiana throwing a massive offer at Julius early in the RFA just to f*** with us, but also because Julius would fit really well next to Myles Turner. But if we could unload Deng somehow or trade for Paul George and keep Julius around for a 4/56 million, it'd be an absolute steal. An insane steal. That's hardly an upgrade over his cap hold even. Hell if that's his market, the Lakers can tell him to stand pat and they'll give him more guaranteed money after they sign their max players.
Indy has bad relations with Mintz via George of course. Plus we supposedly had an offer of Jules or JC and 27, 28 for George this summer and Indy laughed at that offer. I don't think they value Jules as high and personally I don't think Mintz/Jules values Indy as high either. Chicago is super interesting, but now they have Asik's contract on the books, while dealing with Vonleh and LaVine's RFA status. Their hands will be tied up as well as Dallas's. Atlanta is a basement dweller that has 2 player options (and it seems that they should opt in seeing at high frigid the free agent market is projected to be) and a RFA of their own. They'll be a little tied up as well with their free agent players having the leverage to stall just how much money they can throw at Jules. The bottomline is that teams can clear space, but they don't have full power in doing so since the teams projected to have space have RFAs and Player option FAs of their own that can muck up their potential cap space. That's only better news for us cause teams will be limited in throwing 20M+ at Jules. Then include the projected frigid free agency climate this summer and its a recipe for us to retain Jules on a team friendly deal all while adding LaBron and George at a modest trim off their true maxes. Folks have to understand that we only lose Jules if George and LaBron refuse to relent on 6M between them. If they both agree to shed 3M off their true maxes, we keep Jules no matter what the market prices him at. We don't have to trade Deng. We only have to stretch him for that possibility. However we do have to trade him if all 3 players want to get paid. And even then, I would try to do a 3 way deal with Sac and OKC, so that George comes here and we can extend him via his bird rights, (but he would only count as 20.7M against our cap in year 1), Shump, a trade exception and the Cavs 1st round pick go to OKC (who doesn't have a 1st round pick this summer) and the Queens get the Deng dump but we attach our 2020 1st rounder and Zu to Vlade who loves international talent. If that doesn't work, we trade Deng and some assets for Shump or Temple or Koufus. Stretching Shump (the highest salary of those 3 Queens) vs Deng is 3.7M for 3 years vs 7.4M for 5 years and we'll have enough room to offer both George and LaBron their true maxes, all while fitting Jules' cap hold and matching any offer sheet, no matter how high. I would be remiss to say that I would prefer everybody (George, LaBron, Jules) at a lower salary so that we can still have wiggle to round out our roster/bench.
With so many 4/5 focusing on being stretch bigs now its a wonderful thing to see randle still balling without trying to do what others do n be his own beast. The 3pt isnt hindering randles gm, it could only enhance it but we should eventually have more than enough 3pt threat in ball, kuz, hart, pg(?),lopez (?) Where jules can continue to just focus on beasting the paint
Is it a coincidence that The Rock posts on this forum the same day Dwayne Johnson spoke to our team..... I Don't Think So!
Great Read, some quotes in here have already been posted in other threads but here is the entire article for those interested. One state, quote that stood out for me is this: I also liked this bit:
Well I hate to say it but since Jules became a starter, it's become apparent that not making that move at the start of the season is why we are not #8 or even #7 right now. #1 used lineup this season has been Ball, KCP, B, Nance & Lopez with 210 minutes played, with a net rating of -2.8. #2 most used lineup is the same as above but switch out Nance for Kuzma, 166 minutes, net rating: -3.3 net rating. #3 most used lineup is BI, KCP, Hart, Randle & Lopez at 143 mins. Net rating: +9.2 He (and others) were disgruntled in December, in his case both about not starting and talk of being turned loose in the summer. I have no doubt if he started we don't go 3-11 in December. Or 5-9 in November. This one is entirely on Luke. I don't believe he matured as a player/person on the bench watching us eat ****.
eh, i think he's playing better now than he was early. flat out: nance was outplaying him, both in my opinion and in that of the coaching staff. over time, he started taking some advice and gradually made it impossible to sit him. let's credit everyone. letting guys play when they're clearly not aimed towards real growth is problematic, too.
Yes but I think that process could have happened much earlier or from the start. I have no doubt he felt like he was given up on. Nance is a great player and team mate, but doesn't have Jules' ceiling. Nance is a coaches player for sure. And I mean that in a good way, and we don't know if Jules play would have exceeded his given the chance but my money is on yes, definitely. I think Jules also is less stressed about his contract now that he is getting to show some value.
yes. zig when others zag. playing a bunch shooting bigs means teams employ exactly zero players that want any part of messing with randle. feast and feast on their weak a****. 6'10", 240lb clint capela's a damn superstar center? eat him for breakfast. you'll make more in PPP on beast dunks than they will on threes.
With all due respect, we would never know how Jules starting would fare, but based off the data its just flat out false to presume more minutes (or becoming a starter) for Randle would lead to more team wins. First of all the team needed to develop chemistry in the beginning of the year, so the offense would have been unpredictable and recall that it was. We were 28th in offensive efficiency to start the year. One reason being that Luke wanted to emphasize D (we were top 5 in defensive efficiency at one point early in the season, before December). Jules advanced defensive stats ranked him 7th amongst his teammates in terms of win share behind Zo, KCP, BI, JC, Kuz, Nance in that order. With a minimum of 20 minutes played per game, Nance's defensive rating was 2nd on the team only behind Zo and Ju was 6th overall. Also consider the strength of schedule early in the year...we faced more playoff teams hence better defending teams that hurt our offensive efficiency, which affected our net efficiency. Meanwhile Jules was leading the 2nd unit killing lesser opposing units on offense. Then also consider that Ju is a better offensive talent than Nance and of course his offensive efficiency will be better than Nance's...but again that doesn't necessarily mean more team wins as I'll demonstrate now. This is what I posted in the Luke thread earlier: Lets look at the close games (2 possessions or less ie 6 point deficit or less) we've lost this season. There have been 9 games in total. Of course Luke has an imprint in those losses, but certain fans are stating that had our rotations been tighter and that certain players got more minutes (ie Jules), that we would have won those games and been a legit contender for the 8th seed. I've already shown that Jules as a starter (and/or playing 30+ minute games) doesn't mean he leads us to team wins against quality playoff bound teams. But looking at the 9 games we lost by 2 possessions or less, Jules had started in 2 of those losses and had played 30 or more minutes in 5 of those losses (and playing at or above his career avg. of 28 minutes per in 6 of those losses). He's only played less than 20 mins in 1 of those losses. Also consider who we lost to: Lost to the Dubs by 2 and 4, lost to the Blazers by 3 (2x) and 5, lost to the cLips by 5, lost to the "process" by 6 and lost to Houston by 6. The one close loss that we probably should have got was against a non-playoff Knicks team, to which we lost by 4 points. So you think that 1 loss vs the Knicks really would have made up the difference to making the playoffs (we're currently 6 losses out from the 8th seed)? Lets say we chalk up a W against the Knicks and fringe playoff teams like the cLips and Philly, then we're stillsitting at 3 losses out of the playoffs and needing a whole lot of help from teams that are ahead of us in the standings. Now take into consideration that this is a newly constructed team needing time to develop chemistry with one another and finding their true roles, all while taking on the 3rd toughest schedule in the league and that gauntlet of a December schedule. Heck, once Jules was placed in the starting lineup, we still lost 5 in a row. On the season we have lost by double digits (aka got routed) 17 times and out of those losses, Jules has started in 8 of them. Our 2 largest deficits ironically came at the hands of OKC (losses of 24 and 37 points) and Jules started in both those games. Lastly lets consider what Randle himself said in terms of earning his starting spot and extended minutes: Think about the long game approach to all of this. You can hand him unearned minutes and develop Jules the wrong way where he turns into a poor teammate with poor work ethic and is uncoachable...but heck we made the 8th seed and proceed to get blasted by either Houston or GS. OR we can develop him the right way and witness the the player he is today and how that player could one day help us get to a title.
Come on man.... Julius had high character since the minute we drafted him. He's always been humble, hard-working, respectful, and professional. His elders have always praised him (Byron, Worthy, etc) for his great character. He would have succeeded regardless of Luke harping on him. As for his playing time, it was obvious to a lot of us that we were losing leads when Julius was benched and gaining them back when he was put back into the game. We didn't need to look at plus-minus or win shares to see the impact he made on the floor. I mean really, do you think Kuzma is a better defender than Randle? And Hart, one of our other better defenders at 14th? Yup, those numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt. And I don't think you are considering what our chemistry might have been had Julius been a starter from the start. Remember, we were in the midst of that 9-game losing streak when he first became a starter. We've become better and better as the season progressed, WITH injuries to Lonzo + Hart + Ingram, losing JC + Nance, and the regression of Kuzma. Who's been the most consistent in terms of availability and production throughout the year? Julius Randle. He hasn't missed a single game. He's been our MVP this year and it's not even close. As you've stated defending Luke, the hate is not warranted towards Julius either.
If Julius was playing as well at the beginning of the year as he is now, he’d have been starting. I think we’re watching the maturation of a young player with the lights going on and his confidence growing.
That's the thing though, we wouldn't have known because he was often only given 10-15 minutes of playing time. Even in October, it was evident that he was much better at 1) finishing in the paint and 2) defending, two things that are apparent now as well. It made no sense.
@tada You're making me look like a hater cause you won't at least address that the data confirms why Randle was benched for Nance on defense, with coach emphasizing it at the beginning of the year. 2014/15 (technically Jules rookie year): Last on the team in defensive rating and defensive win shares. Lakers are 29th as a team in defensive rating. 2015/16: 2nd to last on the team in defensive rating and defensive win shares. Lakers are dead last in team defensive rating. 2016/17 (Luke's 1st year as coach): 3rd to last in defensive rating and 13th overall (only ahead of DLo, Zu, over the hill Metta, Huertas and Calderon) in defensive win shares. Lakers are dead last in team defensive rating. Luke clearly wanted to change the narrative on defense this year and making Jules earn his minutes and starter position was absolutely the right thing to do, since Jules is no longer hovering towards the bottom of the roster in defensive stats. He's still not the leader there either, but he's encouragingly trending upward.
@vasashi17 Not sure what you are trying to present with the year-by-year team defensive ranking, but the emphasis on defense was implemented by the change in the front office. The message was to get in better shape in order to run and defend. Guess who took that to heart? Julius Randle. Guess who didn't? Zubac and he's damn near out of the league. You are giving way too much credit to Luke and not enough to Julius is what I'm saying. Julius looked like a different player from the very start of the season. It was apparent how much he worked in the offseason. And by the 10th game or so we all knew he needed more minutes for us to win. I'm not saying that Luke didn't have influence on his development, but Julius should be given more credit for his growth than Luke.
You keep claiming Jules is the best player on the roster and the leader...well he has to lead not only on offense, but more importantly on defense to get that distinction. If he's the leader, then he led that Lakers team to last place on defense last year. Pair that with Luke wanting to develop Jule's defensive abilities and responsibilities and that's why I brought up the team's defensive rankings. He called Ju the best one on one defensive player in the league....its not hard to figure out what Luke wants Jules to emphasize. I'm giving both Luke and Jules credit, but you're the one that is faulting Luke exclusively for costing us a playoff bid. I beg to differ and I've provided you more than enough evidence to refute that claim. Its on you if you choose to ignore it. If there is any confusion, then let me clear it up right here, right now. I give Jules a large amount of credit for taking on the challenge that the FO gave him in getting into shape and for taking on the defensive responsibilities that Luke has demanded of him. I just hope dude keeps at it and becomes a defensive stalwart for us. You've seen the quotes that Jules has given Luke credit for his development. Heck even Jules' agent has sang Luke's praises in his clients development as well.
I'm not faulting Luke exclusively @vasashi17 but I think the benching of Julius and other stupid rotations early on cost us 3-5 games. Then there were the injuries, which is somewhat out of Luke's control (although I think Kuzma was clearly being overplayed) which probably cost us another 3-5 games. He's still a young coach so it's understandable but it was frustrating to watch losing winnable games. Randle stepped up to being one of the 2 best players (him or Ingram) this year, so I still don't know why you are mentioning the previous years? I'm not going to fault Lonzo for not being a leader this year because he's hasn't matured as player yet. Same thing with Randle (or Ingram) last year. And again, the emphasis on defense was implemented by the front office. I give credit to Luke and Co. for executing the FO's vision, but Luke didn't change the culture. Magic and Rob did. As you said, under Jim Buss and Luke Walton, we were the worst defensive team in the league. What's changed? The front office. In that sense I give more credit to Magic for Randle's transformation than Luke.
