Perhaps you're unaware of the talent on their bench. Here is a list, 6 thru 15. Darius Miller 6.2 pts 1.2 reb 1.4 ast Solomon Hill 3.1 pts 2.6 reb 1.4 ast Wesley Johnson 4.4 pts 2.7 reb 0.8 ast Tim Frazier 3.8 pts 2.4 reb 4.0 ast (starter) Ian Clark 4.0 pts 1.5 reb 1.3 ast Frank Jackson 4.3 pts 0.7 reb 0.6 ast Cheick Diallo 4.1 pts 3.7 reb 0.4 ast Jahlil Okafor 3.0 pts 1.7 reb 0.1 ast Kenrich Williams 0.8 pts 0.8 reb 0.0 ast Imagine replacing Rondo, Hart, KCP, Chandler, Lance and Beasley with these scrubs. You think we'd be anywhere near .500? And some folks are criticizing Randle for having a net negative +/- coming off the bench packaged with this garbage. Even MJ could not pull off a positive +/- playing with Jahlil Okafor, Wesley Johnson, Solomon Hill and Frank Jackson.
Net +/- tells a good majority of your defensive impact. For example, consider Hart: just like Jules he’s a super sub that floats from bench to starter depending on matchup and need. Both of them guys are energy guys. However only one of them plays effective/efficient D (ie uses their energy in an effective manner). TC joined our squad during the season. McGee / Zo are starters and arent constant running mates with Hart. LABron and Rondo arent the defenders they once were and/or aren’t the best individual defenders... Yet Hart is 37th in the entire league in total net +/- and leads the Lakers in that category. He isn’t a double double monster and high usage offensive player like Jules is...so what impacts his net production isn’t as much his teammates and his own offensive game...it’s his individual defense (see TC’s net too). AD and Jrue are known to be good defenders and as a result, look at their net production. Meanwhile Jules... It’s a failacy, uh fallacy to criticize those pointing to Jules net...he isn’t and hasn’t been an impactful/efficient defender and the numbers completely support that. But he still can be an all-star one day in spite of that...It’s not Hard-en to fathom that thought.
No, none of our rotational players are remotely as bad as their bench. Look how much better Julius' +/- numbers look playing with the starters. It's a bogus and meaningless stat without context. And are you retracting your previous evaluation of Julius? I recall you mentioning his ceiling as a role player with zero impact?
Even Allstars are role players and can be zero impact guys for their careers. Jamal Magloire says hi. Oh look at that...he played for Nawlins too. How about that for context? Keep harping on the "meaningless stat" narrative, while NBA executives actually use that "meaningless stat" to create and coach their rosters. And look at that, even with his double double allstar numbers, Jules's role is to come off the bench, eat off opposing 2nd units and his minutes being capped at 27 mins per. Ignore that "meaningless stat", NO makes for the 2nd team in "mistreating" dude.
No worries bro I got you.... So the most important thing that I said afterwards is that I brought up this guy... ...being an allstar. The rest was me bringing up his numbers and how similar Lakers Jules is to NOP Jules... but why bring up meaningless stats again, so I'll just "let it go". As for backpedaling, nah, I rather pedal forwards. Constantly looking back to the past and not "letting it go" is for suckas....wouldn't you agree?
Julius at 24 yrs old is already far superior to Magloire ever was so I still don't get your point. Is Lebron a role player too? Most of us are over Julius as a Laker and we're looking forward to his bright future ahead. That's why this thread is in the NBA Discussion subforum. It seems you're involved in every Julius quarrel, preaching the Mintz narrative that I will never understand and agree to. I respect your persistence but frankly it's getting tiresome and borderline trollish. So please, let us enjoy our Julius fanhood in peace.
Bro, I'm offended. Borderline trollish...really?!? I tried to go full troll...damn, I need to step my game up. But I respect your request and I'll leave it alone. Frankly I was only trying to argue the net productivity being a meaningless stat comment you brought up....I felt like you elicited a response from me in particular since I like championing that "meaningless stat". Btw, the Mintz angle is pretty obvious, so now it makes total sense to me as to who is trolling who haha. I won't be wasting the rest of my time on discussing it with you further. Have a great day and good luck next summer with all your clients, Aaron.
@vasashi17 - first off - I regret not being able to respond as quickly as you do, not a lot of spare time around this time of the year. I respect you too my good man and like a lot of your views. I also see your point to some extent. BUT We will just never see eye to eye on this. You are making a simple thing way too complicated to prove your point. IMO Julius was never anywhere near a priority for our FO and they made the mistake of showing it to everybody who would care to watch. As noted before - he was never even mentioned in any comments about the Lakers future while the remaining guys were praised seemingly at least once a week. Do you think Julius didn't notice? Can you blame him for feeling underappreciated? We disagree strongly on his impact, value, talent and future which may also impact our view on this, but IMO it's not really debatable that the other young guys were CLEARLY praised A LOT more than Rndle by the entire organization. He was also mistreated having to fight for the starting position even though he was clearly deserving. Which he proved after finally being promoted to the S5. In short - the FO did a lot to make Randle feel unwanted, or at the very least underappreciated. He clearly has a high opinion of his abilities and that's also a trait I personally value in basketball players. I can't blame him at all for being mad at the Lakers and wanting to change the environment. Now to the twets you posted - Pelinka's comment was from freaking May and that was prtobably the first semi-positive comment about Randle's future as a Laker we've sen last season. Besides, the quot is also telling. there has been a mutual exchange of interest and hoping that we can work something out for both sides doesn't scream priority does it? You quoted Mintz's reply yourself. Yes he seems to be the worst Agent in the league, but still - we will probably not agree on this one either but IMO he made a comment like that because that's how Randle genuinely felt. Why should we believe Pelinka when the Lakers LITERALLY did no effort to present Randle as part of the future for the entire season? Concerning your comments about Ingram - is the Management praising other young guns and leaving him out every time like they did with JR? You're right about Shaq, I forgot about the LA Times thank you note. I was pretty certain he called everything about LA fake, including the fans. O well, can't be right all the time
Thanks for the reply, @SamsonMiodek and I take no offense to your delayed response bro. To be clear, my intent is defending the FO against the "mistreatment" narrative...not necessarily s***ting on Jules the player. I had #JulesWatch from the jump this summer...so I clearly wanted to keep dude and I wanted to lock him up once we got our 2max guys. I was really hoping that Mintz had Paula and Jules sacrifice some of their bag to play with each other here along with Bron (pre-Kawhi trade demand to LA), but after Paula dodged us, I was hoping Jules took a blimped 1yr deal with the rest of our remaining cap and then we go get that 2nd max player next summer and lock up Jules after the fact (although other hoops had to be jumped through at that time). May 2017 pre-draft: This is from June 2017: This is from February 2018 after we refused to trade Jules and instead traded Nance/JC opening up even more cap to match any offer Jules got in restricted free agency and still have enough capspace to max a player like Bron: This is Shams after we locked up Bron in July 2018: Instead we let him walk for nothing to a place where he's not playing more minutes than he was here, not making more money than he was here and playing small ball 5 along a superstar, no different than he woulda done here next to Bron. Why? He eventually could get more minutes and become a starter in NOP, but that role and PT wasn't clearly defined when he chose Nawlins, so why was he so adamant to leave LA? Why do we renounce his restricted free agency to make him an unrestricted free agent, when we didn't have to and we were under no duress to? Even if he's hellbent on joining NOP, why not just trade him for Rondo + assets so that Jules could retain his bird rights for NOP to give him more money via an extension next year? You really think Mintz had nothing to do with it? Mintz repped both Ariza and Jules and had Ariza take 15m from a cap having team in Phoenix, which eliminated Jules from that option. Still Atl, Indy and Sac among other teams had significant cap, but Jules didn't get that bag. So when others were saying #PayJules and throw 18m+ per at him, I was pissing off the Jules contingent by saying that type of market wasn't there for him. I wanted Jules, but at a responsible number, yet folks thought I was hating on dude, which is farthest from the truth. You use your cap to add players. You use bird rights to retain the players you have once your cap has been exhausted. It's responsible and the right way to team build. This team of #SmashBros would be perfect for Jules, but Mintz clearly had an agenda and it's a shame.. cause his spite cost his client alot of money and a chance to get alot more money next summer. Jules playing next to Bron under the bright lights of LA with half the league having at least 15m in capspace next summer would have been a tremendous jump-off for Jules to finally get paid...but instead he's playing for 8.6m with rumors that AD isn't happy with the help he has there....and that's the only spotlight that's on that team. So who really mistreated Jules, Mag/Rob or Mintz?
Both, probably. I never defended Mintz either dude is an idiot. None of the quotes you provided are mentioning Randle in the context of the Lakers' future, while there are many such quotes concerning BI, Ball, Kuzma and Hart. We will probably have to agree to disagree on this. My experience suggests that (even though this may seem illogical), disputing the facts is much more difficult than disputing the views (in case you actually agree on the facts), if that makes any sense.
That's fine Sam. Fact remains that we didn't trade him and picked up his qualifying offer implying our intent in keeping him. But you do agree that restricted free agency means the player is at the team's mercy (see how the dubs are handling McCaw). Had we held Jules hostage against his will and looked at him as strictly an asset and not a human being...that would be mistreatment, right? Plus the only untouchable we've ever mentioned publicly is BI. Yet he was rumored, by a very reputable insider in Amick, to be part of a godfather deal for Kawhi this summer. And LA Times' Tania Ganguli made it clear that LA was not eager in trading their youngns but we're open to offers and considered no one untouchable: I'm just not buying this mistreatment angle towards Jules and only Jules. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree....as perplexing as it may be to me that you guys see it any other way.
I know I told you to let it go, but here's my last go. There's no need to reply. This is what it really boils down to. I agree with @SamsonMiodek that you are overthinking the situation. It's real simple. Julius wanted a long-term contract. Or at the very least, a similar role to last year. The Lakers offered and promised him neither. The FO valued the 2019 cap space higher than retaining Randle. So Julius sought after a better situation for his future. He bet on himself and put himself in a position where he can thrive, as we've seen thus far this season. He's losing a couple million this year, but he's setting himself up for that coveted long-term contract next summer. If he gets it, he wins the bet. If he doesn't, he loses. It's that simple. There's no need to over-complicate the situation by throwing in Mintz, who, at the end of the day, is just an agent. The decision was made by Julius Randle. The onus is 100% on him. As for the Lakers side, the bottom line is that it's impossible to judge how we handled the Randle situation without 1) knowing how good of a player he becomes 2) knowing if we can sign a max contract FA next summer. Like Randle, we're betting on ourselves that we can allure KD or Kawhi next year by losing an asset and creating cap space. Worst case scenario: Julius develops into an allstar level/high impact player AND we fail to sign any max FA next year. Better case scenario: Julius regresses or stalls his development AND we fail to sign any max FA next year. Best case scenario #1: Julius develops into an allstar level/high impact player BUT we sign KD or Kawhi. Best case scenario #2: Julius regresses or stalls his development AND we sign KD or Kawhi. (this is as objective as it can get really.... as I'm leaving out the fact that we lost him for NOTHING) So again, we should let it go for now and revisit who turns out to be the real winner/loser in free agency next year. I'm hopeful that both side wins.
@tada but you know I will respond. He was a restricted free agent before the Rondo, Lance, Moe, Svi and Bonga signings. You know what that means right. He has no ability to go to any team without our consent. If he refuses to accept our 1yr QO, he remains a restricted free agent next summer as well. We were bidding against no one but ourselves.. Yet we granted him free passage by renouncing his rights and giving him unrestricted free agency. We had enough cap to offer him about 18m with our cap space or even more going past our cap threshold using his bird rights to give him near or at his max amount of 25.4m. He and his reps refused a 1yr blimped deal, so he already is a loser of about 10-17m this year alone. Again, good luck next year, but you already cost your client big bucks. It doesn't matter what next summer brings...his representation already made him a loser....losing him money, losing him his bird rights and losing g him big market shine/exposure. It's real simple.
This was good for both sides as we needed to act quick on signing Rondo, Lance etc as well. It made no sense for us to prolong the transaction by allowing him to sign offer sheets. Your source?
My source? Come'on bro... Cap space, bird rights and common sense are my source. Making him a restricted free agent and trading Nance/JC to allow us to match an offer while picking up a max player is my source. Also Jules QO was a 12.4m caphold that allowed us about 6m worth of space. 'Do sacrifices about 3m off his contract and Lance/Beas sacrifice 1-2m each by splitting the room exception. If not, then Jules costs us Do, we still have enough for Lance's 4.4m and Beas's 3.5 (via partial room exception). Jules and Mintz blew it...how can't you see it?
See, that's the problem with your arguments. All based on assumptions which you like to call common sense. Who the hell knows what we offered him? The bottom line is Randle thought he was worth more. And he was going to be given a reduced role. Which will likely mean significantly reduced value heading into FA next year. And you expect him to take that generous deal? Please, that's just a homer POV.
Reduced role? He's a sub on NOP like he was here. He plays 27 minutes per (when Niko is healthy) like he was here. He plays small ball 5 (cause AD likes to play 4) like he was here. Lance, Rondo, Beas, JaVale...these dudes don't give a f*** and play free...how exactly does Jules play again? #SmashBro Our team makeup fits Jules's MO perfectly, yet we weren't that generous of a fit for him.. really?!? Before TC became an option, this team brought in JaVale, who had been playing his entire career on a minutes restriction. Nothing before this year said he was a starter that could play 30 minutes per. Jules had that slot if he wanted and had he competed for it in training camp, it was most likely his. He coulda had more money, more of a role and more shine in an LA/Bron market...but refused and you somehow ignore that dumba** s*** and give him and his piss poor representation a pass? Yet I'm the homer?!?
Yes, reduced role. This is coming from the most reliable sources, not some wild assumption. So what exactly does that imply? Let's take a look at our other lottery picks for example. Ball 34.2 --> 27.1 mpg 10.2 --> 8.2 pts 6.9 --> 5.3 reb 7.2 --> 5.3 ast Ingram 34.2 --> 30.8 mpg 16.1 --> 15.2 pts 5.3 --> 4.0 reb 3.9 --> 2.2 ast These players have similar roles, yet their numbers are down across the board. Which is bad news for Randle, who was looking for a long-term deal next summer yet made clear that he'd have a diminished role. Had he competed in training camp? Heard that one before. He was benched for a player of Nance's caliber. I'm sure that was reassuring in his decision-making. There's no way he could have put up the 18.6/9.3/2.6 playing backup to Lebron, McGee, and Kuzma. That's for sure. So why on earth would he sabotage his FA next year again? I'll wait patiently for your sources of the Lakers offering him $25.4M and a larger role. Or you could just admit that both parties had different interests and parted ways.
