The better balanced roster didn't work out that great in 21. We were already over the salary cap, without resigning Schroder that offseason too. I get the concept, but I'm not convinced that we would've been all that much better, had we just ran it back last season. It's debatable but that 20 team? They would have tanked too, if James or Davis missed significant time. Clock is ticking on Rob tho, this is a big season for everyone involved.
It did work though. LeBron played 45 games in 21, AD played 36 (and yes I know it was out of 72), and we still made the play-in and the playoffs. The depth of the team was able to help us stay competitive for the regular season, and then in the playoffs we were up on the Suns when AD went down. We probably win that series if he doesn’t and are at least a WCF team. I never argued against the health of LeBron and AD being the most important factor in all this, but the depth/construction of the rest of the team is the 2nd most. Having Schröder, KCP, Kuz, Caruso, Gasol, Trez, etc helped us be a competitive team even when our stars were missing games. The roster still lacked shooting though and it’s why I didn’t say we were a Fjnals or championship team, it was solid, but it had issues. Last year when they missed games we were arguably the worst team in the NBA. We destroyed our team for Russ, it was the worst trade in Lakers history and we still haven’t recovered. This year’s roster, while I sympathize with Rob only having minimums to work with, is yet another overcorrection and just plain nonsensical. On paper we’re one of the worst shooting teams in the league, our mini MLE signing doesn’t fit next to our starting PG, we lack wings and defense, it’s just an oddly put together team. It’s almost constructed as if Rob thought Kyrie and Harris were going to be on this roster, or at the very least as if he thought Russ wouldn’t be here, which I really, really hope isn’t the case. He doesn’t get a pass though, this is the Lakers, the best franchise in the history of the NBA, a more qualified GM would have done better.
I am 95% sure the Russ trading is over. Not just saying a high % out of anger at the lack of movement, I really think it's at 95% and the 5% is only if Danny Ainge or Chad Buchanan cave and back off their high asking price and one takes Rob's paltry offers. And the only one I could see do that is Buchanan for Turner/Hield as he really stands a chance of losing Turner for nothing and Buddy just doesn't bear out the market. Utah probably wants to dump Conley and wants 2 picks. It's a stupid deal for Rob.
How can you say this???? Rob wanted Hield and got forced to get Russ. How on earth can you say this? Based on what? Also, I don't understand how people here criticize him for this offseason. A mini-MLE and vet mins and the guy makes a complete turnaround of the roster and added guys like Jones, Bryant, JTA that are great fits to this team and gambles on young guys with some ceiling with Walker and Brown. I wonder what teams have made better vet min signs than us
All it takes to make a complete turnaround of the roster is to completely change the roster. We work with vet mins and a MLE every year, big deal. All Rob did is what you said: add guys like Jones, Bryant, JTA. Gambles (your word and totally true). And Walker (far from proven even at the mini-MLE level, a big money increase for him). And Brown, a 2nd-3rd string backup wing. Not exciting at all. He did add Beverley but at easily equal cost of the promising youths he let go, THT and Stanley Johnson. Where is the gold in here that you are seeing man? Aside from Beverley these are ALL newbs. We are like 5-deep for playoffs lol.
But who could have we signed? These are all good moves that bring defense and athleticism that the team was really lacking. I don't understand what could have he done differently that would be better, I'm still waiting for some names from the brilliant GMs we have in this board. Walker was (another) favor to Klutch. Probably linked with James extension. It's politics. I hate it but it's bigger than Rob imo
i dislike the bev trade, but i see how those who think THT was a mistake would think it was a win. if russ wasn't moved, THT was going to continue to flounder here, and bevs has more on court and trade value as an expiring in such a case. the vet mins were all solid players in positions of need, imo. there were few, if any, impressive mini-mle signings, league-wide. and lonnie didn't get a pay increase. his QO from the spurs was basically the same, and he asked them to let him out of it so he could sign here, iirc. i view walker as a swing like monk/nunn last year. if he doesn't work out, he's trade filler or expires. if he does, we may have the ability to keep him bc we used the higher salary slot on him (this is what killed us with monk).
tj warren signed for the minimum with bkn--and we don't know if we offered him or not (or if he'll ever be the player he was two years ago, the last time he played). other than that, signings at that level were not needle-movers anywhere. the mavs used theirs to sign a 33yo javale mcgee to a three-year deal. is that better? the nuggets got bruce brown, who i'd have preferred to pat bev as the pat bev. toronto got porter, whose wife is apparently from there. gs got divincenzo. i think those were the best three signings at that level, league-wide (i guess boston got gallinari, but that's already over). so yeah, i don't get the hand-wringing. i think it was important to rob to not have a player option or multi-year deal, too, which pretty much rules out those guys even if they wanted to come here, which we can't know. it's possible we pursued all of them and lost out. i doubt lonnie was our first and only call with that money.
In a vacuum I like our signings but as a whole not so much. The players are good, they can actually be playable unlike last year's geriatric group. But I wouldn't label them as great, they are minimum players afterall. Theres a question mark on each of them as to why their respective teams let them go. I agree with Weezy's take that the team looked built for a Russ/Kyrie trade. That's bad GMing if you're building a team with a trade in mind that hasn't happened yet. Kind of like how we dumped players and a a pick to clear up a max space before knowing for sure if Kawhi was coming.
The question remains...who did we miss on? You can't force guys to sign here. Whether we made a trade or not, signing two young bigs was a good idea. We played Reaves, Johnson and Gabriel, and signed Monk as a minimum. Those guys turned out to be all useful players . Monk was the best pickup. Is it unrealistic to say that Bryant, Jones, Walker, Brown and JTA aren't a more talented and versatile group, than the kids we picked up last season? We still have Reaves and Gabriel, Swider or Huff could surprise in camp. I think we have a solid group of young guys on this roster. Nunn is only on his 3rd season in the NBA as well. We have 7-9 guys here to fit around our 4 Vets. Two of these kids will likely start. At least one of the bigs will start.
Yep, I agree with you, those are good names. Completely agree with the multi year contract restriction. That's my biggest issue with Rob/our FO. I don't get it since we have LeBron. We form no sort of continuity, it's terrible. Plus, Warren went there thinking Durant would be traded, they would blew out and he would have plenty of opportunities to put up big numbers and get a big contract. I agree Bruce Brown woukd be gettable but he's unplayable with Russ. His fit would be arguable. DiVicenzo would never chose us over Dubs and Porter has that back story, we could have lured him though. But yeah, all in all, we got pretty serviceable guys. They aren't great, they are vet mins for some reason. I can see JTA, Jones and/or Bryant playing in a championship roster Russ killed any flexibility that we could have. Rob has to live with that and he's doing a pretty good job defending the franchise interests. First not knee jerk trading him last year for Wall and picks like LeBron would have wanted and this year holding those picks and not being brainwashed by Russ perceived value that some markets and media are trying to push. I wouldn't have the ability to do it and would have pulled the trigger already, but it very well end up being the best choice. People always want to blame someone. First it was Vogel, now Rob. In the end, it's Lebron who put us in this mess and our cheap owner comes second. Rambii even comes 3rd before blaming Rob and Vogel. It baffles me that people overlook this despite being active here, hence follow the news and reports
What has Lebron done but bring us a chip and AD? Even if the Russ experience doesn't ultimately work out, his expiring deal is the most valuable trade asset that we've had since we've made the AD trade. I don't get the Lebron stuff. What exactly had we accomplished since Kobe/Pau before James came to LA?
i agree here completely. though i'd say ownership is problem #1. the tone is set there, and rambii can only exist with poor organizational structure and culture, imo. that starts at the top.
his expiring isn't that valuable because it's actually too huge. teams have to give up real talent to match it, which isn't usually how expirings work as trade chips. we'd be better off if we had three or four contracts expiring but worth the same amount or even a bit less.
He forced the worst trade in Lakers history. Abeer answered well regarding the value of that expiring, that's why we don't even have a handful of teams who could get him Yep, that's true. I agree with that
We don't realky know that yet, it never made any sense to trade him before the season started. Teams look to move guys that want out and his contract can be used for that. I'm still on the Kyrie trade if things go left in Brooklyn and LA. There will most definitely be someone else looking to get out of their current situation before the season is over.
It's September, we still don't even know if the the big 3 is a bad fit. 21 games isn't enough to say one way or another. It's a bad decision to contemplate giving up draft picks attached to Westbrook before the season started. Keeping it real, unless it's for a big time player (Kyrie). If we trade Russ and 2 or 1 future FRP for these rumored trades, if we had more injury issues, we are stuck with guys that aren't going to move the needle and gave up draft picks to get them. Play it out and access the situation as we go makes the most sense to me. I like Turner but hell he could be injured and out for the season by mid-season. We'd look like fools for that trade idea too.
How in the hell do you actually KNOW man? We made a trade with the intent of the three guys playing together. Not Russ coming in to play with one or the other. They played 21 games of an 82 game season. These dudes never played in more than 5 straight games. That take still ridiculous IMO. You have your opinion, I totally disagree with it.
What? You absolutely trade him before the season starts. You give your first time head coach a set roster and time to implement his system. You do a huge trade midseason and all that progress goes out the window. If he was an 8th/9th rotation player making the min its fine, but he's your number 3 making 47mil. Any trade involving Russ is going to be moving 2-4 players.
