- 1,602
- 1,850
Cheering for Future Lakers Tatum
**LA LAKERS THREAD** Sitting on 17! 2023-2024 offseason begins
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by licensed to ball,
- Start date
darthska
Staff member
- 46,892
- 31,435
- 1,602
- 1,850
- 22,555
- 16,301
Lol good. Then it might motivate Jeanie to go ahead and spend money on players, not BotoxIt would give them the lead, 18-17.#delusionalplz
-foe
- 39,304
- 40,732
we need to ball out and bargain shop in the 2nd round this draft
- 92,371
- 128,133
I got a few guys I like in the second round/undrafted range, but I'll wait closer to the draft.
- 88,746
- 47,956
anybody but the suns and celtics
- 22,555
- 16,301
But but but but rookies and young guys don’t make a difference on contenders anyways
Or so folks believe
- 92,371
- 128,133
The best Russell Westbrook trade packages, building around LeBron and AD, positional needs: Lakers mailbag, Part 2
In Part 2 of our two-part Lakers mailbag, we cover the best Russell Westbrook trade packages, the cost-benefit analysis of trading the team’s future first-round picks, the likely starting positions for LeBron James and Anthony Davis, how to build a better team around James and more.
Submitted questions have been edited for clarity and length.
Based on reports, what’s your favorite/preferred trade package for Russell Westbrook? — @Sobes02
Which teams would be able to trade for Westbrook? — @LittyJohnson69
My favorite Westbrook trade package among the rumored options is the Indiana proposal of Malcolm Brogdon and Buddy Hield for Westbrook (and Kendrick Nunn and/or Talen Horton-Tucker).
Brogdon and Hield are both younger and better fits around James and Davis. That trade, coupled with the right head coaching hire, is perhaps the Lakers’ quickest path back to contention.
If the Lakers sign a small forward with their taxpayer mid-level exception, they could enter next season with a starting five of Davis, James, Free Agent X, Hield, Brogdon, Austin Reaves, Stanley Johnson, Horton-Tucker/Nunn and Wenyen Gabriel off the bench (addition to whoever else they add in free agency). That’s already a better opening roster than this season’s opening night roster — by a lot. (They’d lose Malik Monk in this scenario.)
The one downside to the trade for the Lakers is that they would be taking on extra years of salary — Brogdon has three more years on his contract and Hield has two more. But neither player’s deal is an albatross. The Lakers should be able to flip one or both relatively easily if needed.
I’m also intrigued by potential Houston and Charlotte proposals, depending on the specifics of the packages. I think John Wall and Gordon Hayward — despite the respective concerns with durability — can contribute more to next season’s Lakers team than Westbrook can.
In general, I am pro-Westbrook trade. I think the fit, on and off the court, was terrible, and the Lakers will be better next season even if the player they trade him for is worse (though most of the rumored proposals are for better players/fits).
There’s also a decent chance that an unforeseen suitor emerges.
Anyone who watched this team knows they need wings desperately. Who are some targets you have heard the Lakers linked to and what kind of traits should those players possess? What limitations will the front office have in their quest to acquire such wings? — @southdownunder
What wings are the Lakers looking to target in the offseason? Are players like Robert Covington or Jeff Green affordable if they opt out? — @SheWantMo_Joe
The Lakers only have their taxpayer MLE (worth about $6.2 million annually) available to sign 3-and-D wings. They can technically pursue one through a trade for Westbrook, Horton-Tucker and/or Nunn, but it’s going to be difficult for them to add more than one true difference-maker (and finding even one may be optimistic).
As far as traits, I think the Lakers need a starting-level player who is 6-foot-7 to 6-foot-9, can play either forward spot, can defend multiple positions (preferably two through four) and can hit at least 35 percent of his 3s. Those types of players are difficult to find, of course, but the Lakers ideally need a player who checks at least three of those four boxes.
I listed some names I like in Part 1 of the mailbag: Bruce Brown Jr., Robert Covington, Nicolas Batum, P.J. Tucker, Otto Porter Jr., T.J. Warren and Andre Iguodala. Each of these players checks at least three of those boxes. Covington, Batum, Porter Jr. and a healthy Warren check all four to varying degrees. Brown Jr. and Tucker are on the smaller side but play bigger than their respective heights. Iguodala is a non-threat beyond the arc.
Brown, Covington and Batum are probably out of their price range. Tucker has a player option for more than the taxpayer MLE ($7.4 million compared to $6.3 million), so he’d have to prefer Los Angeles to Miami and more money. That seems unlikely. Iguodala loves Golden State.
Porter Jr. and Warren are probably the two most realistic options.
I’d put Jeff Green in the next tier as an interesting alternative. He’s more of a 4/5 than a 3/4. He has a $4.5 million player option, so the Lakers would likely have to pay him at least that much. I think he’s a solid Plan B/C the Lakers strike out with one of the above names.
Will the team trade the picks? That’s the only concern I have been thinking about. — @AbdulazizLAL1
Any indication on how willing they are to include 2027 and/or 2029 firsts in deals for Westbrook? How high is THT’s value in the market and have the Lakers taken calls for him this offseason? — @LakerFern
Based on their deadline activity, and everything that I’ve heard dating back to last season, I think the Lakers are going to do everything they can to retain their 2027 and 2029 first-round picks. But if trading one of the picks is the best path to dumping Westbrook and/or significantly improving the roster, I think they will strongly consider it.
They are in the win-now business with James and Davis. There is no pushing things off to the following season or the post-James era. Next season will possibly be the Lakers’ best shot at a title this decade — the James-Davis duo isn’t getting any younger or healthier.
As a result, the Lakers should probably maintain an all-in approach which includes upgrading the roster in the short term at the expense of longer-term plans (within reason). If not, they should flip James and/or Davis for young players and picks and just rebuild. I don’t see that happening, obviously.
It’s a delicate balance. The Westbrook trade was an all-in move that blew up in their face, though it never made sense to begin with. They can’t repeat that mistake. But James may only have one or two more elite seasons. The Lakers need to build the best team possible as soon as they can.
Do you see the Lakers building the roster with AD as the starting center or power forward? No way they go back to two-big lineups after seeing how LeBron thrives with spacing right? — @Zeus_NYC
Do you expect LeBron and AD to the four/five moving forward? Or to slide back to the three/four? — @LakersSupply
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I wouldn’t rule out the two-big lineups quite yet — especially if Westbrook is off the roster, which would allow for a center to be the non-shooter in the starting lineup (it was an issue when it was Westbrook and Dwight Howard/DeAndre Jordan).
Davis’ preference remains to play the four in spite of him embracing playing the five more this season. Vogel wasn’t the only backer of the two-big configurations. The Lakers built their last three rosters with the intention of using Davis next to a center for solid stretches of games.
I think the most likely bet is the Lakers shifting James and Davis to power forward and center, respectively. But it partially depends on their new coach’s principles and the team’s depth at forward and center next season. The roster construction will be telling.
Do you think the insistence on building a team that historically hasn’t suited LeBron-led teams (i.e. not surrounding him with shooters) will continue to be the plan going forward? Or will they change the team-building structure? — @iceball_23
Lakers vice president of basketball operations and general manager Rob Pelinka was adamant at his exit interview that he’s taking accountability and re-examining where things went wrong with this season’s roster. If that’s truly the case, I think the Lakers will try their best to mimic their 2019-20 and 2020-21 roster builds.
It’s going to be difficult. This is where losing so much depth in the Westbrook trade and not re-signing Alex Caruso really hurts the Lakers. They could desperately use Caruso or Caldwell-Pope next season (plus a free agent addition or two).
To your point, though, the Lakers need more shooting, in general, but especially for James-centric lineups — and preferably some more versatility among their shooters.
Most of their shooters were subpar defensively and/or were specialists (Monk, Carmelo Anthony, Wayne Ellington and D.J. Augustin). Of course, shooting is expensive. Most elite shooters make more than the veteran’s minimum. The Lakers are going to have to get creative — possibly in the G League and/or the undrafted market — to find rotation-caliber shooters who can hold up in other ways.
We’ve heard a lot of names put out there for the Lakers’ next head coach, but I feel like a lot of them are far-fetched. Who do you think is a realistic target for us? — @oy35
Doc Rivers, Quin Snyder and Mike Brown are all realistic coaching candidates, in my view, depending on how Rivers’ and Snyder’s respective seasons end. I’d rank them Snyder, Brown and Rivers from the Lakers’ perspective.
Any available coaching candidate should be realistic for the Lakers. It’s going to be the top job on the market aside from perhaps Brooklyn. You get to coach James and Davis and live in Los Angeles while at the helm of the most storied franchise in NBA history. I think most coaches would jump at that opportunity, assuming the Lakers offer market value with dollars and years.
The coaching long shots are coaches who are either under contract (Nick Nurse) or have a disproportionate level of power in college compared to what they’d have in the NBA (John Calipari). Otherwise, I think just about any coach is attainable.
Is there any way for us to keep Malik Monk? — @24myfav
Yes, particularly if the market for Monk is tepid and the Lakers are willing to use their taxpayer MLE on him.
The more I’ve thought about it, though, the more I think Monk is gone (I always leaned that way, but even more so now). I just don’t see how the Lakers can use their primary financial resource on a shooting guard who is undersized and a defensive liability. They have greater needs, particularly in the wing, that need to be filled.
That said, it’s certainly possible Monk is back. There are scenarios in which he’s the best player available and the Lakers simply need to prioritize talent over fit/need. But more likely than not, I think they spend their primary free-agency resource on a different type of player.
Various reports have indicated Monk could command as much as $10 million next season, which would be out of the Lakers’ spending range. So there’s a chance he’s gone regardless of the Lakers’ projection of his potential.
Who’s the next Caruso/Reaves? Any undrafted free agents that the scouts have their eyes on? — @JustLampy
I haven’t heard much about the Lakers’ targets in this draft yet. But part of the magic — no pun intended — is their scouts’ ability to identify underrated talent. I don’t think them leaking who they’re evaluating is in their best interest. I expect we’ll get a better understanding in the coming weeks ahead of the June 23 NBA Draft. They’re going to find a gem — it happens every offseason.
Among the in-house players, I’d keep an eye on Mac McClung, who they signed to a two-way contract before the end of the regular season. The G League’s Rookie of the Year has backup point guard potential.
I have also been really impressed with Mason Jones. I think he has the chance to eventually break out as a legit NBA-level scorer.
Do you think it’s odd that the Lakers have completely fallen apart since you started covering them? —
obiwankobe
I had noticed this. It is odd. I wasn’t going to say anything …
Jovan, have you cursed us? — @lukelebsack
I mean, I guess the Buha Curse is becoming a thing …
In Part 2 of our two-part Lakers mailbag, we cover the best Russell Westbrook trade packages, the cost-benefit analysis of trading the team’s future first-round picks, the likely starting positions for LeBron James and Anthony Davis, how to build a better team around James and more.
Submitted questions have been edited for clarity and length.
Based on reports, what’s your favorite/preferred trade package for Russell Westbrook? — @Sobes02
Which teams would be able to trade for Westbrook? — @LittyJohnson69
My favorite Westbrook trade package among the rumored options is the Indiana proposal of Malcolm Brogdon and Buddy Hield for Westbrook (and Kendrick Nunn and/or Talen Horton-Tucker).
Brogdon and Hield are both younger and better fits around James and Davis. That trade, coupled with the right head coaching hire, is perhaps the Lakers’ quickest path back to contention.
If the Lakers sign a small forward with their taxpayer mid-level exception, they could enter next season with a starting five of Davis, James, Free Agent X, Hield, Brogdon, Austin Reaves, Stanley Johnson, Horton-Tucker/Nunn and Wenyen Gabriel off the bench (addition to whoever else they add in free agency). That’s already a better opening roster than this season’s opening night roster — by a lot. (They’d lose Malik Monk in this scenario.)
The one downside to the trade for the Lakers is that they would be taking on extra years of salary — Brogdon has three more years on his contract and Hield has two more. But neither player’s deal is an albatross. The Lakers should be able to flip one or both relatively easily if needed.
I’m also intrigued by potential Houston and Charlotte proposals, depending on the specifics of the packages. I think John Wall and Gordon Hayward — despite the respective concerns with durability — can contribute more to next season’s Lakers team than Westbrook can.
In general, I am pro-Westbrook trade. I think the fit, on and off the court, was terrible, and the Lakers will be better next season even if the player they trade him for is worse (though most of the rumored proposals are for better players/fits).
There’s also a decent chance that an unforeseen suitor emerges.
Anyone who watched this team knows they need wings desperately. Who are some targets you have heard the Lakers linked to and what kind of traits should those players possess? What limitations will the front office have in their quest to acquire such wings? — @southdownunder
What wings are the Lakers looking to target in the offseason? Are players like Robert Covington or Jeff Green affordable if they opt out? — @SheWantMo_Joe
The Lakers only have their taxpayer MLE (worth about $6.2 million annually) available to sign 3-and-D wings. They can technically pursue one through a trade for Westbrook, Horton-Tucker and/or Nunn, but it’s going to be difficult for them to add more than one true difference-maker (and finding even one may be optimistic).
As far as traits, I think the Lakers need a starting-level player who is 6-foot-7 to 6-foot-9, can play either forward spot, can defend multiple positions (preferably two through four) and can hit at least 35 percent of his 3s. Those types of players are difficult to find, of course, but the Lakers ideally need a player who checks at least three of those four boxes.
I listed some names I like in Part 1 of the mailbag: Bruce Brown Jr., Robert Covington, Nicolas Batum, P.J. Tucker, Otto Porter Jr., T.J. Warren and Andre Iguodala. Each of these players checks at least three of those boxes. Covington, Batum, Porter Jr. and a healthy Warren check all four to varying degrees. Brown Jr. and Tucker are on the smaller side but play bigger than their respective heights. Iguodala is a non-threat beyond the arc.
Brown, Covington and Batum are probably out of their price range. Tucker has a player option for more than the taxpayer MLE ($7.4 million compared to $6.3 million), so he’d have to prefer Los Angeles to Miami and more money. That seems unlikely. Iguodala loves Golden State.
Porter Jr. and Warren are probably the two most realistic options.
I’d put Jeff Green in the next tier as an interesting alternative. He’s more of a 4/5 than a 3/4. He has a $4.5 million player option, so the Lakers would likely have to pay him at least that much. I think he’s a solid Plan B/C the Lakers strike out with one of the above names.
Will the team trade the picks? That’s the only concern I have been thinking about. — @AbdulazizLAL1
Any indication on how willing they are to include 2027 and/or 2029 firsts in deals for Westbrook? How high is THT’s value in the market and have the Lakers taken calls for him this offseason? — @LakerFern
Based on their deadline activity, and everything that I’ve heard dating back to last season, I think the Lakers are going to do everything they can to retain their 2027 and 2029 first-round picks. But if trading one of the picks is the best path to dumping Westbrook and/or significantly improving the roster, I think they will strongly consider it.
They are in the win-now business with James and Davis. There is no pushing things off to the following season or the post-James era. Next season will possibly be the Lakers’ best shot at a title this decade — the James-Davis duo isn’t getting any younger or healthier.
As a result, the Lakers should probably maintain an all-in approach which includes upgrading the roster in the short term at the expense of longer-term plans (within reason). If not, they should flip James and/or Davis for young players and picks and just rebuild. I don’t see that happening, obviously.
It’s a delicate balance. The Westbrook trade was an all-in move that blew up in their face, though it never made sense to begin with. They can’t repeat that mistake. But James may only have one or two more elite seasons. The Lakers need to build the best team possible as soon as they can.
Do you see the Lakers building the roster with AD as the starting center or power forward? No way they go back to two-big lineups after seeing how LeBron thrives with spacing right? — @Zeus_NYC
Do you expect LeBron and AD to the four/five moving forward? Or to slide back to the three/four? — @LakersSupply
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I wouldn’t rule out the two-big lineups quite yet — especially if Westbrook is off the roster, which would allow for a center to be the non-shooter in the starting lineup (it was an issue when it was Westbrook and Dwight Howard/DeAndre Jordan).
Davis’ preference remains to play the four in spite of him embracing playing the five more this season. Vogel wasn’t the only backer of the two-big configurations. The Lakers built their last three rosters with the intention of using Davis next to a center for solid stretches of games.
I think the most likely bet is the Lakers shifting James and Davis to power forward and center, respectively. But it partially depends on their new coach’s principles and the team’s depth at forward and center next season. The roster construction will be telling.
Do you think the insistence on building a team that historically hasn’t suited LeBron-led teams (i.e. not surrounding him with shooters) will continue to be the plan going forward? Or will they change the team-building structure? — @iceball_23
Lakers vice president of basketball operations and general manager Rob Pelinka was adamant at his exit interview that he’s taking accountability and re-examining where things went wrong with this season’s roster. If that’s truly the case, I think the Lakers will try their best to mimic their 2019-20 and 2020-21 roster builds.
It’s going to be difficult. This is where losing so much depth in the Westbrook trade and not re-signing Alex Caruso really hurts the Lakers. They could desperately use Caruso or Caldwell-Pope next season (plus a free agent addition or two).
To your point, though, the Lakers need more shooting, in general, but especially for James-centric lineups — and preferably some more versatility among their shooters.
Most of their shooters were subpar defensively and/or were specialists (Monk, Carmelo Anthony, Wayne Ellington and D.J. Augustin). Of course, shooting is expensive. Most elite shooters make more than the veteran’s minimum. The Lakers are going to have to get creative — possibly in the G League and/or the undrafted market — to find rotation-caliber shooters who can hold up in other ways.
We’ve heard a lot of names put out there for the Lakers’ next head coach, but I feel like a lot of them are far-fetched. Who do you think is a realistic target for us? — @oy35
Doc Rivers, Quin Snyder and Mike Brown are all realistic coaching candidates, in my view, depending on how Rivers’ and Snyder’s respective seasons end. I’d rank them Snyder, Brown and Rivers from the Lakers’ perspective.
Any available coaching candidate should be realistic for the Lakers. It’s going to be the top job on the market aside from perhaps Brooklyn. You get to coach James and Davis and live in Los Angeles while at the helm of the most storied franchise in NBA history. I think most coaches would jump at that opportunity, assuming the Lakers offer market value with dollars and years.
The coaching long shots are coaches who are either under contract (Nick Nurse) or have a disproportionate level of power in college compared to what they’d have in the NBA (John Calipari). Otherwise, I think just about any coach is attainable.
Is there any way for us to keep Malik Monk? — @24myfav
Yes, particularly if the market for Monk is tepid and the Lakers are willing to use their taxpayer MLE on him.
The more I’ve thought about it, though, the more I think Monk is gone (I always leaned that way, but even more so now). I just don’t see how the Lakers can use their primary financial resource on a shooting guard who is undersized and a defensive liability. They have greater needs, particularly in the wing, that need to be filled.
That said, it’s certainly possible Monk is back. There are scenarios in which he’s the best player available and the Lakers simply need to prioritize talent over fit/need. But more likely than not, I think they spend their primary free-agency resource on a different type of player.
Various reports have indicated Monk could command as much as $10 million next season, which would be out of the Lakers’ spending range. So there’s a chance he’s gone regardless of the Lakers’ projection of his potential.
Who’s the next Caruso/Reaves? Any undrafted free agents that the scouts have their eyes on? — @JustLampy
I haven’t heard much about the Lakers’ targets in this draft yet. But part of the magic — no pun intended — is their scouts’ ability to identify underrated talent. I don’t think them leaking who they’re evaluating is in their best interest. I expect we’ll get a better understanding in the coming weeks ahead of the June 23 NBA Draft. They’re going to find a gem — it happens every offseason.
Among the in-house players, I’d keep an eye on Mac McClung, who they signed to a two-way contract before the end of the regular season. The G League’s Rookie of the Year has backup point guard potential.
I have also been really impressed with Mason Jones. I think he has the chance to eventually break out as a legit NBA-level scorer.
Do you think it’s odd that the Lakers have completely fallen apart since you started covering them? —
obiwankobe
I had noticed this. It is odd. I wasn’t going to say anything …
Jovan, have you cursed us? — @lukelebsack
I mean, I guess the Buha Curse is becoming a thing …
- 22,555
- 16,301
The best Russell Westbrook trade packages, building around LeBron and AD, positional needs: Lakers mailbag, Part 2
In Part 2 of our two-part Lakers mailbag, we cover the best Russell Westbrook trade packages, the cost-benefit analysis of trading the team’s future first-round picks, the likely starting positions for LeBron James and Anthony Davis, how to build a better team around James and more.
Submitted questions have been edited for clarity and length.
Based on reports, what’s your favorite/preferred trade package for Russell Westbrook? — @Sobes02
Which teams would be able to trade for Westbrook? — @LittyJohnson69
My favorite Westbrook trade package among the rumored options is the Indiana proposal of Malcolm Brogdon and Buddy Hield for Westbrook (and Kendrick Nunn and/or Talen Horton-Tucker).
Brogdon and Hield are both younger and better fits around James and Davis. That trade, coupled with the right head coaching hire, is perhaps the Lakers’ quickest path back to contention.
If the Lakers sign a small forward with their taxpayer mid-level exception, they could enter next season with a starting five of Davis, James, Free Agent X, Hield, Brogdon, Austin Reaves, Stanley Johnson, Horton-Tucker/Nunn and Wenyen Gabriel off the bench (addition to whoever else they add in free agency). That’s already a better opening roster than this season’s opening night roster — by a lot. (They’d lose Malik Monk in this scenario.)
The one downside to the trade for the Lakers is that they would be taking on extra years of salary — Brogdon has three more years on his contract and Hield has two more. But neither player’s deal is an albatross. The Lakers should be able to flip one or both relatively easily if needed.
I’m also intrigued by potential Houston and Charlotte proposals, depending on the specifics of the packages. I think John Wall and Gordon Hayward — despite the respective concerns with durability — can contribute more to next season’s Lakers team than Westbrook can.
In general, I am pro-Westbrook trade. I think the fit, on and off the court, was terrible, and the Lakers will be better next season even if the player they trade him for is worse (though most of the rumored proposals are for better players/fits).
There’s also a decent chance that an unforeseen suitor emerges.
Anyone who watched this team knows they need wings desperately. Who are some targets you have heard the Lakers linked to and what kind of traits should those players possess? What limitations will the front office have in their quest to acquire such wings? — @southdownunder
What wings are the Lakers looking to target in the offseason? Are players like Robert Covington or Jeff Green affordable if they opt out? — @SheWantMo_Joe
The Lakers only have their taxpayer MLE (worth about $6.2 million annually) available to sign 3-and-D wings. They can technically pursue one through a trade for Westbrook, Horton-Tucker and/or Nunn, but it’s going to be difficult for them to add more than one true difference-maker (and finding even one may be optimistic).
As far as traits, I think the Lakers need a starting-level player who is 6-foot-7 to 6-foot-9, can play either forward spot, can defend multiple positions (preferably two through four) and can hit at least 35 percent of his 3s. Those types of players are difficult to find, of course, but the Lakers ideally need a player who checks at least three of those four boxes.
I listed some names I like in Part 1 of the mailbag: Bruce Brown Jr., Robert Covington, Nicolas Batum, P.J. Tucker, Otto Porter Jr., T.J. Warren and Andre Iguodala. Each of these players checks at least three of those boxes. Covington, Batum, Porter Jr. and a healthy Warren check all four to varying degrees. Brown Jr. and Tucker are on the smaller side but play bigger than their respective heights. Iguodala is a non-threat beyond the arc.
Brown, Covington and Batum are probably out of their price range. Tucker has a player option for more than the taxpayer MLE ($7.4 million compared to $6.3 million), so he’d have to prefer Los Angeles to Miami and more money. That seems unlikely. Iguodala loves Golden State.
Porter Jr. and Warren are probably the two most realistic options.
I’d put Jeff Green in the next tier as an interesting alternative. He’s more of a 4/5 than a 3/4. He has a $4.5 million player option, so the Lakers would likely have to pay him at least that much. I think he’s a solid Plan B/C the Lakers strike out with one of the above names.
Will the team trade the picks? That’s the only concern I have been thinking about. — @AbdulazizLAL1
Any indication on how willing they are to include 2027 and/or 2029 firsts in deals for Westbrook? How high is THT’s value in the market and have the Lakers taken calls for him this offseason? — @LakerFern
Based on their deadline activity, and everything that I’ve heard dating back to last season, I think the Lakers are going to do everything they can to retain their 2027 and 2029 first-round picks. But if trading one of the picks is the best path to dumping Westbrook and/or significantly improving the roster, I think they will strongly consider it.
They are in the win-now business with James and Davis. There is no pushing things off to the following season or the post-James era. Next season will possibly be the Lakers’ best shot at a title this decade — the James-Davis duo isn’t getting any younger or healthier.
As a result, the Lakers should probably maintain an all-in approach which includes upgrading the roster in the short term at the expense of longer-term plans (within reason). If not, they should flip James and/or Davis for young players and picks and just rebuild. I don’t see that happening, obviously.
It’s a delicate balance. The Westbrook trade was an all-in move that blew up in their face, though it never made sense to begin with. They can’t repeat that mistake. But James may only have one or two more elite seasons. The Lakers need to build the best team possible as soon as they can.
Do you see the Lakers building the roster with AD as the starting center or power forward? No way they go back to two-big lineups after seeing how LeBron thrives with spacing right? — @Zeus_NYC
Do you expect LeBron and AD to the four/five moving forward? Or to slide back to the three/four? — @LakersSupply
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I wouldn’t rule out the two-big lineups quite yet — especially if Westbrook is off the roster, which would allow for a center to be the non-shooter in the starting lineup (it was an issue when it was Westbrook and Dwight Howard/DeAndre Jordan).
Davis’ preference remains to play the four in spite of him embracing playing the five more this season. Vogel wasn’t the only backer of the two-big configurations. The Lakers built their last three rosters with the intention of using Davis next to a center for solid stretches of games.
I think the most likely bet is the Lakers shifting James and Davis to power forward and center, respectively. But it partially depends on their new coach’s principles and the team’s depth at forward and center next season. The roster construction will be telling.
Do you think the insistence on building a team that historically hasn’t suited LeBron-led teams (i.e. not surrounding him with shooters) will continue to be the plan going forward? Or will they change the team-building structure? — @iceball_23
Lakers vice president of basketball operations and general manager Rob Pelinka was adamant at his exit interview that he’s taking accountability and re-examining where things went wrong with this season’s roster. If that’s truly the case, I think the Lakers will try their best to mimic their 2019-20 and 2020-21 roster builds.
It’s going to be difficult. This is where losing so much depth in the Westbrook trade and not re-signing Alex Caruso really hurts the Lakers. They could desperately use Caruso or Caldwell-Pope next season (plus a free agent addition or two).
To your point, though, the Lakers need more shooting, in general, but especially for James-centric lineups — and preferably some more versatility among their shooters.
Most of their shooters were subpar defensively and/or were specialists (Monk, Carmelo Anthony, Wayne Ellington and D.J. Augustin). Of course, shooting is expensive. Most elite shooters make more than the veteran’s minimum. The Lakers are going to have to get creative — possibly in the G League and/or the undrafted market — to find rotation-caliber shooters who can hold up in other ways.
We’ve heard a lot of names put out there for the Lakers’ next head coach, but I feel like a lot of them are far-fetched. Who do you think is a realistic target for us? — @oy35
Doc Rivers, Quin Snyder and Mike Brown are all realistic coaching candidates, in my view, depending on how Rivers’ and Snyder’s respective seasons end. I’d rank them Snyder, Brown and Rivers from the Lakers’ perspective.
Any available coaching candidate should be realistic for the Lakers. It’s going to be the top job on the market aside from perhaps Brooklyn. You get to coach James and Davis and live in Los Angeles while at the helm of the most storied franchise in NBA history. I think most coaches would jump at that opportunity, assuming the Lakers offer market value with dollars and years.
The coaching long shots are coaches who are either under contract (Nick Nurse) or have a disproportionate level of power in college compared to what they’d have in the NBA (John Calipari). Otherwise, I think just about any coach is attainable.
Is there any way for us to keep Malik Monk? — @24myfav
Yes, particularly if the market for Monk is tepid and the Lakers are willing to use their taxpayer MLE on him.
The more I’ve thought about it, though, the more I think Monk is gone (I always leaned that way, but even more so now). I just don’t see how the Lakers can use their primary financial resource on a shooting guard who is undersized and a defensive liability. They have greater needs, particularly in the wing, that need to be filled.
That said, it’s certainly possible Monk is back. There are scenarios in which he’s the best player available and the Lakers simply need to prioritize talent over fit/need. But more likely than not, I think they spend their primary free-agency resource on a different type of player.
Various reports have indicated Monk could command as much as $10 million next season, which would be out of the Lakers’ spending range. So there’s a chance he’s gone regardless of the Lakers’ projection of his potential.
Who’s the next Caruso/Reaves? Any undrafted free agents that the scouts have their eyes on? — @JustLampy
I haven’t heard much about the Lakers’ targets in this draft yet. But part of the magic — no pun intended — is their scouts’ ability to identify underrated talent. I don’t think them leaking who they’re evaluating is in their best interest. I expect we’ll get a better understanding in the coming weeks ahead of the June 23 NBA Draft. They’re going to find a gem — it happens every offseason.
Among the in-house players, I’d keep an eye on Mac McClung, who they signed to a two-way contract before the end of the regular season. The G League’s Rookie of the Year has backup point guard potential.
I have also been really impressed with Mason Jones. I think he has the chance to eventually break out as a legit NBA-level scorer.
Do you think it’s odd that the Lakers have completely fallen apart since you started covering them? —
I had noticed this. It is odd. I wasn’t going to say anything …
Jovan, have you cursed us? — @lukelebsack
I mean, I guess the Buha Curse is becoming a thing …
Lol at the nt’er asking an NT level question
- 7,660
- 10,608
Pretty much sums up my feelings about Malik. I know he was one of the few bright spots this season but unless he’s willing to take another minimum deal I don’t see how it makes sense to bring him back.
- 39,304
- 40,732
if the team chooses to run it back with rust and tht isnt traded
he will be gone, especially with nunn opting in
unless he bruises his other knee
if theyre all back, rotation talk will be byke
- 18,767
- 10,165
- 18,767
- 10,165
- 39,304
- 40,732
Im not ready
- 92,371
- 128,133
For what it's worth (nothing), Westbrick deleted all his pics of him in a Lakers, Wizards, and Rockets jersey. Just pics of him during his Thunder days. 
- 92,371
- 128,133
That's not a real thing. Just a fan-made photoshop.
- 7,660
- 10,608
The only Russ news I care about is the official trade announcement 
- 22,555
- 16,301
Too soon if real. Won’t be watching.
- 22,555
- 16,301
Better team won
You expect teams to go 82-0 and 16-0?
I don’t get what you’re getting at?
Even Phil jackson didn’t go 770-0
- 22,555
- 16,301
Luka just gave his head coach lots of props for the defensive improvement of the team and going small in the 3 games he was out.
Guess you know more than luka.
I’m gonna email him tonight and tell him he’s an idiot for thinking Kidd had anything to do with the teams success
