2022 Offseason Thread

[ggsimmonds]

Maybe its the minority but I'd take consistent success. Winning titles is great for sure, but ultimately I watch sports to be entertained over making memories. I'm more entertained watching high quality competitive games. Of course I'm assuming in the continued success option I wouldn't know we would always come up short.

[ojandpizza]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

You're taking the phrase "all in for a title" too literal. Its not winning one title and then pat yourself on the back and say we're done lets tank now. Going all in means you identified a window and will do almost everything you can to win in that window. Could be one title, or it could be multiple. But its still all in win now mindset. For the Lakers their window is LeBron's contract duration. Teams that are built through free agency and trades are almost never built to last.

Right but next year will be 5 years under that contract, 4 since really going “all in” with a window. If he signs for longer then longer. If we are looking at what has transpired over that span are we saying having Hart, Ingram, Kuzma was the team built to provide lasting excellence? Idk about that. Forgot to add Ball, who’s never healthy anyways.

I know it gives a window, but where are the abundance of bigger windows? When people make this type of argument the team that almost immediately pops into my head is Portland. Up until this year obviously. And I don’t think Portland sets the model for what a team ideally wants to be, and people been trying to get Dame to leave for like 5 years now.

Not every team lucks into a Giannis at pick 15 who takes 5 years to turn into an All-Star caliber guy so you can build around that with other good picks and then all the sudden he’s an MVP best player alive type of guy. Not every team has a guy like Steph have an injury history so you’re only paying him 11 million and those injuries just miraculously disappear and all of a sudden you have the MVP, a title team around him, and still have extra cap space lol.

Idk every time this type of topic pops up people act like it’s some super tiny window that will just cripple a teams future and the alternative is a 20 year run of excellence like the Spurs had if they wouldn’t have done that. Because that’s obviously something we see frequently replicated.

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by ojandpizza

Idk every time this type of topic pops up people act like it’s some super tiny window that will just cripple a teams future and the alternative is a 20 year run of excellence like the Spurs had if they wouldn’t have done that. Because that’s obviously something we see frequently replicated.

No matter what path you take nothing is guaranteed.

If you're a team with one bona fide superstar in their prime and a few young players with promise do you stay the course and hope one of those young guys develop quickly enough to make you a championship contender or do you flip the young talent for another guy in their prime to improve your championship chances now at the expense of sacrificing a little down the road?

Sure right now a Laker team with LeBron, Ingram, Kuzma, and Ball would be better than what they have with AD. But the time that deal was made those 3 had some serious question marks.

I don't think there is a right answer. It all boils down to hindsight.
It definitely seems like the current league preference is to sacrifice the future if you have a shot at acquiring multiple stars in their prime.

But I do think teams go too far in making their roster top heavy. What good is a second superstar if you have no depth? Thats not win now vs sustained success, thats just flat out incompetence.

(related, does anyone have a link handy to a breakdown of draft success rate for the NBA?)

[rdnk]

There are several injury related what if's with this Laker's run:

What if LeBron doesn't get hurt the first year? Do they even trade for Davis then?
What if Davis doesn't go down against Phoenix? Do they make another deep playoff run?
What if LeBron and Davis play more together this year? Can they turn a complete disaster into something salvageable?

That said, they had a significant amount of good luck during the bubble season, so maybe it all cancels out.

The best comparison I can make this Laker's era to is the Ben Cherington BoSox teams, where they won 1 title in that era and were complete abject failures the other years (Bobby Valentine!). Still, most sports fans will take a 5 year window of 1 title and 4 years of crushed dreams of contention compared to most other 5 year runs in their favorite team's history.

As far as a path forward for the Lakers, they need to hire a good coach, bolster their medical/physio/nutritional staff, flip Westbrook's expiring and the 2027 1st into 2 overpaid starters, resign Monk with the MLE, and add several vets on minimum contracts that fit the scheme.

[The 24th Letter]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

I get that, but how long in between championships is too long? You would rather take one championship followed by sucking versus consistent success but no championship right? How many years of suck before you say we need another championship? Orioles last won a WS in 1984 and have largely sucked since then. That championship ~40 years ago isn't doing a lot for me right now

It’s more so about what you said above, nothing is guaranteed.

We’ve seen super teams fail of course

but we’ve also seen a lot of these “look at all this cap space we’ve built!” plans go up in flames. We’ve seen home grown talent split up too soon or simply not jell.

How brilliant is Presti really if these 9000 picks don’t result in anything over the next decade?

Point is, “Yeah they got one but….” doesn’t compute with me. They got one. There’s a million things that can go wrong in an NBA season. You break through, you can’t take that for granted in my eyes.

[King_B_Mack]

Quote: Originally Posted by rdnk

There are several injury related what if's with this Laker's run: What if LeBron doesn't get hurt the first year? Do they even trade for Davis then? Yes. Rich Paul and Davis were forcing their way out of NO no matter what happened with the Lakers' season and Davis only wanted to go there. What if Davis doesn't go down against Phoenix? Do they make another deep playoff run? No. Because Chris Paul got hurt in that series too and if we're gonna play the what if game, then you gotta go to that too. What if LeBron and Davis play more together this year? Can they turn a complete disaster into something salvageable? No. This team had too many issues even with all of them on the floor to overcome. They'd at least be a playoff team though I think. That said, they had a significant amount of good luck during the bubble season, so maybe it all cancels out. To be fair to them though. Every championship team needs a bit of luck to get to the top. There's always something that's gonna break right for them on the path to a title. So can't knock them for that.

Responses in bold

[King_B_Mack]

Quote: Originally Posted by ojandpizza

Right but next year will be 5 years under that contract, 4 since really going “all in” with a window. If he signs for longer then longer. If we are looking at what has transpired over that span are we saying having Hart, Ingram, Kuzma was the team built to provide lasting excellence? Idk about that. Forgot to add Ball, who’s never healthy anyways. I know it gives a window, but where are the abundance of bigger windows? When people make this type of argument the team that almost immediately pops into my head is Portland. Up until this year obviously. And I don’t think Portland sets the model for what a team ideally wants to be, and people been trying to get Dame to leave for like 5 years now. Not every team lucks into a Giannis at pick 15 who takes 5 years to turn into an All-Star caliber guy so you can build around that with other good picks and then all the sudden he’s an MVP best player alive type of guy. Not every team has a guy like Steph have an injury history so you’re only paying him 11 million and those injuries just miraculously disappear and all of a sudden you have the MVP, a title team around him, and still have extra cap space lol. Idk every time this type of topic pops up people act like it’s some super tiny window that will just cripple a teams future and the alternative is a 20 year run of excellence like the Spurs had if they wouldn’t have done that. Because that’s obviously something we see frequently replicated.

I mean...in the context of this particular discussion, it's "super tiny" window cause LeBron (and now it's spreading to other players) will bounce and keep his feelings of whether or not he's interested in leaving or not under wraps the entire time until the moment he leaves. Hell look at the Nets. They'd be close to a lock to win a title with Allen, Levert, etc. still on the roster with KD and Kyrie probably, but they moved it all for Harden who didn't even want to be there and yet said nothing until the trade deadline.

I don't know. I just like the idea of having a superstar and maybe another star and building a roster around them that can grow around them so that if they decide to leave/retire/get hurt whatever the case may be, you can quickly retool as opposed to toiling in garbage for extended periods

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by King_B_Mack

I mean...in the context of this particular discussion, it's "super tiny" window cause LeBron (and now it's spreading to other players) will bounce and keep his feelings of whether or not he's interested in leaving or not under wraps the entire time until the moment he leaves. Hell look at the Nets. They'd be close to a lock to win a title with Allen, Levert, etc. still on the roster with KD and Kyrie probably, but they moved it all for Harden who didn't even want to be there and yet said nothing until the trade deadline. I don't know. I just like the idea of having a superstar and maybe another star and building a roster around them that can grow around them so that if they decide to leave/retire/get hurt whatever the case may be, you can quickly retool as opposed to toiling in garbage for extended periods

In that scenario I think its easy to fall into a trap. Trade some young pieces to land that second star with the thinking that its easier to get role players than it is to land a star, and then reacquire some replacement role players. But by the time you get those role players and integrate them with the team, one of those stars wants out.

A lot of things have to line up at the right time to get that "organically built" team that is poised for long term success. Bucks, Memphis, and Boston got extremely lucky cause it lined up for them. But then the latter two have to face the challenge of keeping that core together.

OKC did everything right. Hit the jackpot on homegrown talent and the right time and in the end what do they have to show for it? In the end their window was just as small as some build thru FA/trades teams.

Drafting two stars so they can grow together and form a nucleus is incredibly rare, and sometimes even when you do manage that you get nothing to show for it (shout out to Philly and "the process")

But specific to the Lakers, imo their mistake wasn't going all-in on win-now mode. Their mistake was only going 75% into win-now mode. Don't say you are all-in on winning but then lose a key contributor because you don't want the luxury tax involved.