What are you talking about? You're using this stat that isn't even designed to rank players in a vacuum, to do that exact thing, and show our young talent has some great potential that they haven't shown an inkling of on the court. Obviously they cannot carry this team individually. But you don't think a James-AD or James-Leonard or James-AD-Leonard combo couldn't? They can definitely do a better job than 100 Russell's and Randle's
What don't you understand? The point is you have him until you HAVE to move him. When you get someone to commit, then you move him. This has been done in the past by other teams. Randle at 11 million could be moved on a moment's notice.
Uhh, that wasn't even in response to you. I've outlined very clearly earlier in this thread that teams generally employ 2 ways to win. 1) Draft stars 2) Sign/Trade for stars We have not done the first. Therefore, we need to do the second. Obviously James and AD with no talent can't contend. But given the advantage we have of being in LA, it is very easy to sign cheap veteran role players to fill certain niches and contend very quickly. Many teams have done it before us.
I mean if he had four all-stars, sure. I haven’t said he can’t do it. I’m saying it’s crazy to think this team is on good shape. It’s crazy to think James won’t be worse next year. It’s crazy to think this was one of James’s five best seasons.
We might have to give up something with him. You never know. Teams might see how desperate we are to move him and leverage more out of us. It's better to just keep the cap space, in all honesty. Especially if Randle is not a part of our long term plans.
Nobody is saying any of that. James doesn't need 4 all stars. People said he was done last year and he got to the finals carrying a Cavs team that was playing very poorly. Nobody is saying this team is in good shape. But we've gone all in on winning with James. And that's the right move at this stage.
It's objectively true. Superstars are a rare breed. Only 5-10 of them MAYBE exist in the NBA. We are so fortunate to have one again, and that too one of the best ever.
FO might be a mess. But I'm not considering that piece since it'll be true no matter what we do. The only strategy is to go all in on signing a max FA and using our assets to trade for a star. At that point, it won't matter even if Kurt Rambis assumes complete control of the franchise. If we kept all our young talent, eventually, we would have to do the same thing. Or we'd lock up our cap room with young players who don't have star or superstar potential, and we would end up like a worse version of Minnesota, offering Russell, Randle, and Ingram multi-year extensions while we'd float in mediocrity with no room to improve. Our only option would then be, once again, trading the assets for a star. If you want to tank. Then yeah, blow it all up and let's tank. But might as well try one summer to see if we can pull Leonard and Davis here and contend, before giving up that fast. If the uncertainty of needing to sign/trade for superstars bothers you, then we have to go back to the draft, and tank for future superstars. We can also acquire multiple draft picks by offering to take on bad contracts. Maybe Silver will feel bad for us and gift us Zion.
asset>cap space, especially when you dont do anything with the cap space other than roll it over when FA doesn't go according to plan.
You can't be serious with the toughness and consistency scoring down low that we lost and he brought in always increasing fashion this year as every past year, to help us get to the playoffs and make some noise in this LeBron's first year. Not wasting it. Look at his durability in addition to all that, over the last 3 seasons. Would rather have had Randle infinitely more than any of the 3 besides McGee. He would have wanted to test FA this summer and could have done it just like he will from the Pelicans. Or you prefer what we got from Stevenson, Beasley and Rondo? Caruso would have been a better backup after Lonzo, BI and LeBron during the season, injuries not factored. Or factored.
There's always the risk of Randle opting into his player option. I also don't think he really wanted to be here after how Luke treated him. But sure, we could have signed him this season for a 2 year deal instead of Rondo and then dumped him at the deadline or during the offseason. Ultimately, the end goal is the same though. The FO punted this season when they signed the "meme team" to 1 year deals. Now, we're in the same position. We have James, cap space, and assets. Time to make something of it.
Randle wouldn't have take the same deal he got from Pelicans, I dont believe we could've offer him such a deal...was either QO or the 4yr deal he was looking for
I agree with this. But I'm operating under the assumption that Randle takes the same Pelican's deal for the purposes of this discussion, which seems to be the prevailing opinion on here. In the grand scheme of things, though, I don't think another year of renting Randle does much. If we don't get the FA or Davis, there's no point having him on this team (unless to tank). If we do, then this season was meaningless anyways. I still think Luke pissed off Randle, and the lack of extension and trade rumors had him out the door before July 1st ever hit.
Maybe we sneak into the 8th seed. But then what? Get swept by the Warriors in the first round? I'd rather have the lottery pick, which we can use to get Davis. The goal as the Lakers, IMO, is to contend. Any steps that don't help us achieve that goal, are irrelevant.
That's some semblance I guess better than you "not seeing the point" about Randle from those of us opposed to having not kept him at least one more season as an RFA .... compared to your complete dismissal of what value he would have been to us this year. We would be in the playoffs. Get it?
If people are really up in arms about not resigning Randle as a 1 year rental, and that's it, I can see where they're coming from. But I don't think it's a big deal in the grand scheme of things. I also never dismissed his potential value to the team this year. I don't know where you're getting that from. What is more troubling to see are opinions that we should have never signed James so we could keep Russell, Randle, and Nance. Because of their potential.
Yes but if we had any sense they would have talked with him and given him a higher 1 year qualifying offer so he was happy. If he was happy enough with the money because he had to be in NO he would have been happier likely here for the year with more than he got in NO.
