2024-25 Team Developments: Trades / Free Agents / News / Rumors / Ideas

where are lebron and AD's attempts there? do they take a lot? because it could be like threes, where for some guys taking more means making a higher percentage. in other words, the causal direction flows both ways (if you're bad at them, you take fewer, if you take fewer, you're bad at them).

also, how are they defining "midrange", because AD shot 49% from 3-10ft last year and 43% from 10-16ft. it was only 16-23ft (really a place almost all players should avoid unless they're the bailout guy) that he shot 37%. moreover, his fga% tracks his fg% nearly perfectly (he takes more shots where he makes more shots). lebron was similar but shot very poorly from 10-16 (31%) but almost never took those.

anyway, this is why i harped on never having AD catch beyond 15-17ft as part of the plan on offense (no five out). it gives the defense a huge break against a guy who's really hard to guard from 17ft and in.


btw, for comparison, jayson tatum shot 39% from 10-16ft and 40% from 16-23. i also checked, and they're definitely defining it by 16-23 only, so if that's "midrange" then what is a 14 footer? derozan is considered a midrange master--because he shoots nearly 50% from 10-16. he's down at 40% from 16-23.

 

lane is claiming we lowballed valanciunas, but i don't see how there's evidence there. i really want people to understand how much money lebron would have left on the table to simply "open up the mle". there's a lot of speculation here, with him saying that logic says we offered only one guaranteed year. that's possible, but he acts like it's the only way to explain this. he also discounts the waiting on klay angle, which is a very real possibility.

"opted for more guaranteed money": remember, at the time he signed he had no guaranteed money on the table. we were chasing klay. what if we end up getting klay, and washington pivots in the interim? valanciunas got "more guaranteed money" than zero. i want to see reporting, preferably from his agent, that says the lakers offered X amount. until then, i'm skeptical.

this is why i don't like the podcastosphere. he just creates a premise then treats like it actually occurred.

we are at the second apron (190 million). to use the MLE on valanciunas, we had to be under the first apron (179) by his contract amount. so, at minimum, lebron's giving up more than 20 million. i suppose you can argue we could have cut max loose (cue fans screaming here, too), then lebron only has to take a 12 million dollar paycut, which is more plausible but also not something lebron has really come close to doing.

i really think a lot of offseason plans hinged on dlo either opting out or us trading him. he didn't opt out, and we couldn't find a move that wouldn't be a downgrade.

even if we end up trading max for jonas, we'd essentially have the same team but with lebron basically giving up no money instead of 12 million.

finally, let's accept lane's argument that the whole thing was about 1 versus 2 guaranteed years: what's that about? what does the FO think it knows that we don't about what's happening after this year? to me that's the most interesting question that would follow if this were actually what happened. do they think we can't afford to have another player option next year? why? do they think valanciunas will be cooked after one more year? why did NO let him walk when they need a center more desperately than we do? they had his bird rights.

anyway, i find it hard to believe that the real reason was we wouldn't give him the same deal washington did. IF lane's right, yes, that looks very bad. i just don't think he's right.

 

Great breakdown!
I do think we have been reducing AD and Bron jumpers. Bron started taking more threes and AD has been playing more under the basket. I think it will become even more obvious this season with JJ offense

Absolutely agree with you. Especially regarding the podcasters and how they approach topics and the language they used. They take speculation and thoughts as facts and build up narratives. It's mostly the language they use, often merging speculation with stating facts.

Unfortunately, most people don't question what they hear and the narratives build up.
That's why I enjoy more KamBrothers to follow Lakers media. They are able to express their theories more broadly, often talking about both angles and grasping possible consequences and fallouts of each one.
Buha is nice too, but he looks like he's trying to build his reputation as a 'company man' which leads to using a language more protective of the franchise.

 

Trevor was a respected poster here for quite some time and he and the LakerNation guys are definitely on the more positive end of Laker podcast content.

 

He seems like a good dude but his delivery is not great, imo. I think his reads lack depth and he draws inaccurate conclusions. Doesn't seem to be someone so apt at understanding the game, long term strategy or the business of it. But I agree he does the best he can and has been doing it for years.

He was the first one I started to follow a few years ago, then stopped and now I follow the KamBrothers and Buha on YT. KamBrothers have daily videos and Buha around 3 a week.
KamBrothers are part of Locked On NBA network and the quality and structure is good and established.
Buha is a one-man show but he seems like a smart kid and the quality has been growing. I think he will only get better. He could benefit from having someone else with him, because listening to one guy talking for 30 to 40 minutes can get tiring. He's starting to add graphics though and if he improves them, it can become more appealing

 

of those i've watched, i probably like kam bros the most.

anyway, it wasn't a blanket condemnation of lane, it was just pointing out the he took a pretty vague line from an article, constructed a scenario, then acted as though it definitely happened instead of might have happened.

again, when valanciunas's agent comes out and says "the lakers offered us 2 years, 16 million with a non-guaranteed second year and refused to come up", then i'm joining trevor on the wtf bandwagon.

 

He has been calling for the Lakers to get a big for quite some time. It kind of bothered me though that he wants to go after an expensive big that would command significant minutes, and doesn't mind trading a pick or two for such. But, it turns out that he was correct this whole time, as AD has now made it clear that he does not want to play center. Lakers don't have to grant his request, but they likely will. It looks like Lebron has leaned down and is working hard on his catch-and-shoot threes, so maybe he is gearing up for going back to small forward? Also, if Lebron really is finally going to be 100% off the ball, he would likely have more energy for defense. Grant Hill transformed into a defensive stopper late in his career, even after terrible injuries.

 

Looks like a good trade. It is a forgone conclusion that Dlo would be traded anyway. Last season, Vincent and JHS were deadweight, even though this year may be different, and I feel JHS is still a very good prospect. But all in all, this is a good trade. We also free up some salary for next season with JHS off of the books.

 

LeBron's never going to be 100% off ball, nor should he be with his skills and for changing things up and exploiting mismatches. But your points are good about what he looks to be doing with his weight toward going back to SF at times if a true 5 is in the lineup and for defense, and being much more off ball.

 

We are trading 3 PGs. We are left with Brogdon (who misses more games than Vando) and...Bronny? Don't like it at all. What are we actually gaining with that? Is it offsetting what we are losing (our 3rd best player, best guard setting up AD, best shooter, PG backup, a POA defender and one of the few guys in the roster to have played in the NBA Finals)?

Bron is not a 3 for 5 years now. The 3s are too mobile. It can work with some spot up shooters, but that's it. And if you're trading your point guards, Bron cannot be off-ball. You can't have both. So, if he's on-ball you don't want him chasing Tatum, PG, Mikal Bridges, J-Dub, a McDaniels who never stops running or Markannen, etc...

Finally, if you're trading for a center who will play close to 30 minutes, you have to trade Rui and/or Vando. So you either lose shooting or defense or both.

I don't think trading any of our starting 5 for a center, makes our team better. Now, if it's a Gabe or Vando from last year who don't play, sure. If it's Max or Knecht, maybe, depending on how they look like with this group and who comes.

In the end, it's a lateral move that doesn't improve our floor or ceiling. The center depth is definitely a problem, but fixing it while opening a new issue at PG, the wings, shooting/spacing or defense is not the way to go, imo.

 

Yeah. good points. There are some gaps that the trade leaves us with. I forgot about Brogdon's durability issues. Kind of like that wack em all game. Vincent and two second-round picks for Valnieucious should be sufficient, right?

 

Yeah I really don't know what's Valanciunas value. I mean, if they signed him with an eye to trade him they surely want something of value.
I would say that they either want 1FRP or a young player they like. But that's what makes sense and it's Washington so...who knows
Maybe we can fool them with JHS and Lewis. Or even Bronny. Bronny might become somewhere down the line as a sweetener in a low-ball trade just for the buzz and marketing, which can be of value to teams like Washington, Detroit or Brooklyn

 

the wiz pulled a bogdanovic, imo. and unless jonas really balls out, they'll get a couple second rounders or a heavily protected 1st for him. so fine for them, good for him. makes sense.

before i heard vando and wood were already out, i thought we were poised to surprise folks positively. without them, i'm dubious. it's more vando than wood, but it's just not the way you want to start.

i think pika was saying lebron isn't a 3, but i think he can play the three defensively. he's demonstrated more interest in that than playing the five (which is really the better spot for him on that end). he's a smart team defender, and i don't think opposing teams really want to test him in isolation with their sf, as he'd take it personally--especially if that game is on tv. his improving three point shot means that a guy like valanciunas could totally play in an offense with him, AD, dlo, and reaves, imo. and i like zagging when others zig or whatever.

anyway, vando's injury has me bummed. not a great omen.

 

I disagree. In postseason? Sure. He's one of the best ever at both ends of the floor and when locked in, he's great. But during the regular season he switches off a lot, we have discussed it here plenty. I don't hold it against him, that's how you prolong your career and he still is a huge net positive on the floor. But schematically you have to account for it. He's off-ball defense is also quite bad (in regular season) which is more of a concern against 3s than 4s.
It gets less daunting when he can guard the non-shooters or less versatile 4s. But I mean, there's teams playing guards at 3, like Ant, Booker, LeVert, etc. I really don't see how that works for an entire season. But I agree it's matchup dependent.
Also, Valanciunas is as good a defender as Rui, while you're losing shooting and spacing. I don't see the benefit.

I absolutely agree and have been defending it for years that we should have a reliable backup C. Mostly to save AD from matchups he doesn't like, against strong physical big men, or to better face Denver. And also to cover when AD is not on the court, so it's not so bad for us. But any C who may play more than 20/25 minutes, I don't think that's how we maximize this roster.
Dallas got Gafford for nothing last season. That's the type of trade we need to find. A guy you can plug in and out of the lineup and find a good balance between what's best for AD, Bron and the team, depending on the matchups.

Even when we won the title, AD played a lot of 5. It was Markieff resurgence that catapulted our team. Absolutely that Dwight/McGee pairing (which btw, Val is nothing like them) helped us a lot, and it was exactly that ability of going big or "small" that maximized the team and we could face anybody. But AD at the 5 was still our prime time unit.
I believe AD may want to play more at 4. But I also think Bron doesn't want to play at the 3. So I think this is actually what justifies why it hasn't happened yet

Yeah, this Val signing absolutely looks like Bogdanovic, which was a failure by Detroit. But if I remember correctly, they did receive 1 FRP offers but they wanted 2 at the time and rejected them. Only to trade him for less some months after. They still got 2 seconds and Grimes (which they traded for THJ and 3 seconds). So they are already in 5 seconds and THJ who can become something more this deadline.


Btw, I was listening to Cuban at the Roommates podcast (with Brunson and Josh Hart) and be explains why he sold some ownership % of the Mavs and it's mainly due to the CBA. He then explores what the CBA means and the restrictions of it, further reinforcing why it's imperative to be mindful of it when making moves and how much owners are "afraid of it". I think it helps to explain our approach and notably the player development stuff we've been talking about, as a way to have players in more team-friendly contracts

 

i wouldn't overreact too much to the cba because if it's as bad as some say, it will change in five years, imo.

anyway, agree to disagree on lebron at the 3. i don't know that the defensive role is that much different across the forwards these days. lebron's big defensive problems to me are off ball: boxing out and closing out. i'm not sure if that's worse when he's at the sf or pf spot.

odd thing is that my real wish has always been for lebron to be a super-charged draymond, but he's just not into it. he wants to be a big steph curry instead. is what it is. but if that's it, he's got to find minutes at the 3, imo.

 

Let’s go!