Comparing this rebuild to the last rebuild ('91-'94)

Here is how the Lakers are doing in rebuilding compared to when the rebuilt after Magic retired (the '91-'92, '92-93' and '93-'94 seasons). Below are the top 8 in terms of total minutes played from each team with their age at the start of the season:
'91-'92 (43-39)
Sedale Threatt, 30, 15.1 ppg, 7.2 apg, 37.4 mpg
AC Green, 28, 13.6 ppg, 9.3 rpg, 35.4 mpg
Byron Scott, 30, 14.9 ppg, 32.7 mpg
Sam Perkins, 30, 16.5 ppg, 8.8 rpg, 37.0 mpg
James Worthy, 30, 19.9 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 39.0 mpg
Elden Campbell, 23, 7.1 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 23.2 mpg
Terry Teagle, 31, 10.7 ppg, 19.5 mpg
Vlade Divac, 23, 11.3 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 27.2 mpg
With the exception of Campbell and Divac, these players were too old to contribute when the Lakers had enough talent to contend again. This was essentially Teagle's last season in the NBA. I think Divac had an injury has he played in only 36 games.

'92-'93 (39-43)
Sedale Threatt, 31, 15.1 ppg, 6.9 apg, 35.3 mpg
AC Green, 29, 12.8 ppg, 8.7 rpg, 34.4 mpg
Vlade Divac, 24, 12.8 ppg, 8.9 rpg, 30.8 mpg
James Worthy, 31, 14.9 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 28.8 mpg
Byron Scott, 30, 13.7 ppg, 28.9 mpg
Anthony Peeler, 23, 10.4 ppg, 21.5 mpg
Sam Perkins, 31, 13.7 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 32.4 mpg
Elden Campbell, 24, 7.7 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 19.6 mpg
Peeler was added through the draft. Sam Perkins was traded mid-season for Doug Christie and Sam Bowie. AC Green left after this season through free agency. Byron Scott went to Indiana (trade? free agent?).

'93-'94 (33-49)
Nick Van Exel, 22, 13.6 ppg, 5.8 apg, 33.3 mpg
Vlade Divac, 25, 14.2 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 34.0 mpg
Sedale Threatt, 32, 11.9 ppg, 4.2 apg, 28.1 mpg
Elden Campbell, 25, 12.3 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 29.6 mpg
George Lynch, 23, 9.6 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 24.8 mpg
Tony Smith, 25, 8.8 ppg, 22.2 mpg
James Worthy, 32, 10.2 ppg, 20.0 mpg
Doug Christie, 23, 10.3 ppg, 23.3 mpg
Van Exel and Lynch were added through the draft. The Lakers at this point had three young, quality players in Van Exel, Divac and Campbell. Threatt would be a reserve for two more years before moving on. Peeler was injured and only played in 30 games, but Lynch and Peeler would never do much as Lakers and were eventually traded for next to nothing so that the Lakers could sign Shaq. Tony Smith was a journeyman who would play one more season for the Lakers before bouncing around 5 other NBA clubs. James Worthy's knees gave out and he retired after this season. Christie would be traded after this season for two future second-round draft picks.

'04-'05 (34-48 )
Chuck Atkins, 30, 13.6 ppg, 4.4 apg, 35.4 mpg
Caron Butler, 24, 15.5 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 35.7 mpg
Kobe Bryant, 26, 27.6 ppg, 6.0 apg, 40.7 mpg
Lamar Odom, 25, 15.2 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 36.3 mpg
Chris Mihm, 25, 9.8 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 24.9 mpg
Jumaine Jones, 25, 7.6 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 24.1 mpg
Brian Grant, 32, 3.8 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 16.5 mpg
Brian Cook, 6.4 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 15.1 mpg
Of these 8, only Atkins and Grant are too old to contribute when the Lakers have enough talent to contend again. Bryant and Odom are better than Van Exel and Divac were. Butler is better than Campbell was. I hope that Jones, Mihm and Cook will turn out better for the Lakers than Lynch, Smith, Christie and Peeler did. Looking further down the bench, this year squad has Walton and Vujacic, which have far more potential to break into the top 8 than Reggie Jordan and Antonio Harvey had.

Overall, the Lakers look to be in better shape after one year of rebuilding than they were after three seasons that last time they rebuilt. As in the '94 off-season, the Lakers have the #10 pick this year. In '94, the Lakers drafted future All-Star Eddie Jones, traded their '95 #1 draft pick for All-Star and head case Cedric Ceballos, then brought in as coach Del Harris, which was a much better fit for a young, rebuilding club than Randy Pfund was. If the Lakers make similar caliber moves this off-season, they too could start contending next season.

Posted here at LG.net

Reply to a question on why the Lakers didn't get more for Shaq

1. Why did we HAVE to trade Shaq? Everyone kept saying we HAD to trade Shaq but I've never heard a decent explanation. Just b/c he was unhappy? There's lots of unhappy NBA players. All Atlanta Hawks for one thing. Some of the Clippers for another, but they can't force trades. Shaq had 2 years left on his contract. Why not keep him? He would still be the MDE during those 2 years. And, if he played like a pouting b!tch, wouldn't that kill chances for a decent contract extension w/ other teams?

To me, there were three possibilities at the end of last season. #1 was that the Lakers make Shaq happy by giving him a massive contract extension. Kobe then probably walks through free agency. Shaq probably doesn't keep himself in shape, turns into a pile of goo and has a contract that makes him untradeable. The Lakers have no cap room for years and years. There is lots of locker room disharmony for years and years as Shaq blames everyone but himself for the team's mediocre performance. The Lakers suck for years and years.

#2 was that the Lakers don't give Shaq his extension. Shaq is really pissed and doesn't keep himself in shape. Kobe then probably walks through free agency. I don't think the Lakers make the Payton trade, because they need to win while they have Shaq on the roster. Shaq goes through the motions all season while swelling up like a balloon. The Lakers are absolutely awful, with a starting line up of Cook, Medvedenko, Walton, KRush and Payton. Shaq's behavior makes his trade value plummet. In his last season, Shaq shows up in shape, plays hard, and complains the whole time. When the contract ends, the Lakers have to hose down and antisceptic all of their spaces to remove all traces of Shaq.

#3 was that the Lakers trade Shaq, re-sign Kobe and use what they got from Shaq to rebuild the team to be a contender in 3 to 6 years. Choice #3 sounds the best to me.

2. How did Shaq "veto" trade offers? If Shaq only agreed to a trade if it were to NYK and if the Lakers took Allan Houston and Tim Thomas in exchange, would the Lakers simply shrug their shoulders and take it? Of course not. So, why were the Lakers 'forced' to take a mediocre offer? Why not hold out for a better one?

The Lakers wanted a tremendous amount from a team for Shaq. For a team to give up a tremendous amount, they wanted a commitment from The Big Moody that he would be happy playing there. Would you give away as much as the Heat gave away for a player who was going to show up out of shape then go through the motions all season while complaining and moaning?

3. CBA max contracts. Shaq got grandfathered in, but I thought after his 2006 extension, only the Lakers could offer him $30+ million. Everyone else could only offer him $15+ million or so. Didn't that give the Lakers huge leverage in negotiating contract extension w/ Shaq? Offer him $20 mil, b/c no one can offer more than $17mil.

Yes and No. Yes, the Lakers could offer him more than anyone else. No, in that for the seasons his new contract would cover, Shaq isn't going to be worth more than the $15+ million. As long as Shaq was on the Lakers, he was going to demand the monster extension and his attitude was going to get worse because Buss wasn't going to give it to him.

4. Why Brian Grant? Everyone knew he was grossly overpaid at $15 mil for 3 more long years. Why take an untradeable player w/ weak knees from the Heat? Not only do we give them Shaq, but we take a untradeable, overpaid player off their hands? Gives the Heat room to acquire 'Zo, Damon Jones, etc. At $15 mil, that's half Shaq's $30 mil contract anyway? Why not force Miami into a 3-way trade and get someone decent at $15 mil. Or at least someone w/ a shorter contract.

You had to have a monster contract like Grant's in order to make the trade work. As for forcing Miami to make a trade to get a different monster contract, whatever price Miami had to pay to get a different player was going to be deducted from what they offered the Lakers, so it makes more sense for the Lakers to get Grant and then swing a deal that better suits them. Miami's offer was Miami's offer - they offered as much as they were going to pay for Shaq so it doesn't make sense to wonder what more the Lakers could have "forced" Miami to do.

Posted here at LG.net

Comments on proposed trades including one for Carlos Boozer

You have some problems in your trade idea:

*Lakers Trade Caron Butler, Chris Mihm, Vlade Divac and 10th Overal Pick to Utah for Carlos Boozer, Kirk Snyder and 27th Overall.

Let's start with timing on this one - once you trade Mihm and Divac, the Lakers have Cook as their starting C. You solve this by signing Gadzuric as a MLE FA. However, that to me is crawling too far out on a limb - if you don't sign Gadzuric, then the Lakers have a massive weakness in their starting line up. If you wait until you sign Gadzuric, then the Lakers will have already drafted and can't trade the #10 pick.

To me, you are trading way too much to get Boozer. Centers are extremely difficult to get and Mihm is one of the better young ones. I am really hoping that having started for a season will encourage him to really work hard this off-season. The rumored trade for Boozer is Butler, #17, Atkins, Vlade, trade X for Boozer and Borchardt, which is a more reasonable cost.

*Lakers Trade Chucky Atkins, Brian Cook, Sasha Vujacic and Miami Heat 2006 First Round Pick to Grizzlies for Jason Williams, Dahntay Jones and 19th Overall Pick.

I am not really certain the point of this trade as neither Atkins or Williams are a solution for the Lakers. I am not a big fan of Cook or Vujacic, but I am not certain that you can get much better with the #19 pick. Seems more like player churn, which is counter-productive.

*Lakers Trade Slava Medvedenko, Devean George, and 2nd Round Pick(37) to Pacers for Jonathan Bender and 17th Overall Pick.

As I said before, I like this trade.

Free Agency
Dan Gadzuric(MLE)
Tony Delk(LLE)

I don't like the idea of Delk. I would much rather give the time to a young player. If it costs the Lakers some games, so be it - it improves their draft position. The Lakers aren't trying to win it all next season - they are trying to position themselves to be a contender in 3 to 5 years.

Posted here at LG.net

Comments on a proposed trades including one with Golden State

First off, you never, ever acquire a contract like Derek Fisher's unless the rest of the deal is too sweet to pass up. I call contracts like Derek Fisher's a "Misery Burden", because such contracts are very hard to trade. The Lakers already have such a contract with Brian Grant's, and I have yet to hear of even a rumor of any team wanting any trade with the Lakers that involves Grant. Also, given Fisher's age, his current contract is probably his last contract. At any time, he can just stop caring, stop keeping in shape, stop dieting, stop working out, stop hitting the weight room and it will have zero effect on his financial future. Now, Derek may be professional enough that he will give his all to the end of the contract, but there is definitely a chance that at any time, he will become a non-contributing financial liability.

To see what I am talking about, look at one of your other trades (which is rumored to be close to happening) - George and Medvedenko for Bender and the 17th pick. Why are the Pacers offering the 17th pick for what is essentially a bench player swap? Because they are willing to give up that much to get rid of a bad contract. And Fisher's contract is much worse than Bender's.

Secondly, always go to RealGM.com and check to see if your trade is possible. The Odom/Divac/Jones/10th pick/future 2nd rounder for Murphy/Dunleavy/Fisher/40th pick trade idea doesn't come anywhere close to having balanced salaries so it can't happen.

More on the Odom/Divac/Jones/10th pick/future 2nd rounder for Murphy/Dunleavy/Fisher/40th pick trade idea. Odom and Jones are roughly the same age as Murphy and Dunleavy, so the Lakers effectively give up one young player in this trade. Right now, the Lakers want to get younger, not give up young players.

As for doing 4 trades involving 7 players, it is generally a bad idea to trade too many players. You should trade at most one, maybe two of your top six unless something exceptional is happening. Last year, Mitch was forced to blow up the team, but you shouldn't choose to do that. Making trade A with the hope that trades B, C and D happen is foolish because lots of trades never happen. It takes players a long time to get comfortable and to mesh with each other. It takes a couple of years to evaluate rookies. So, keep the number of trades realistic.

I disagree with the Vujacic and cash for #19 pick. First off, I don't think Sasha showed enough to be worth a #19 pick. I can't see a team trading a draft pick for him because that would mean that the Lakers know that draft pick being traded is worth more than Sasha. As Sasha is the only young, promising point guard on the roster, I wouldn't trade him unless I was getting a young point guard in return. Certainly not for a draft pick. Again, this looks like counter-productive churn - Sasha spent one season getting to know the players and now you want to start all over again with a new draft pick.

As for trading Atkins and the #17 pick for Arroyo, have you checked out Arroyo's stats? In four seasons, he is averaging only 3.4 apg and 7.2 ppg. In 40 games with Detroit, he shot .376 and averaged 3.2 apg and 5.4 ppg. You would be trading the Lakers' starting PG and a #17 pick for a so-so backup PG. Forget about Atkins, I wouldn't trade the #17 pick for Arroyo because you can at least hope that the #17 pick will eventually blossom into a starter.

Posted here on LG.net

Comments on the Lakers Vision for the future

I am thinking more broadly and that this off-season, the Lakers shouldn't focus on how they will do in the playoffs next season and should instead focus on moving some of their older players to acquire some young talent. Unless Mitch pulls off some of the greatest trades/drafts of all time, the Lakers aren't going to compete for a championship this year. I would much rather they continue to add to the foundation this off-season while remaining competitive. The already have young players in 5 of their top 6 spots - Mihm (25), Odom (25), Butler (25), Bryant (26) and Jones (26). They also have Cook (24), Walton (25), and Vujacic (21), but I don't know if the Lakers will re-sign Walton or if Cook and Vujacic will ever be quality players. So to me, they should move Atkins, Divac, George, Grant and/or Medvedenko for draft picks and/or young players, make a good draft pick, play for a low playoff seeding this year and then do more talent evaluation.

As for the rumor trades, the first of which is with Indiana for Bender and #17 pick for George, Slava and 1 or 2 of the second round picks. If the Lakers pull this off, they get a mid-first round pick and a 24 year old backup PF for a surplus SF, an inconsistant PF and some near useless draft picks. I like it.

Next is the rumored Butler, 17, Atkins, Vlade, trade X for Boozer and Borchardt. To me, this is a quantity for quality trade, which IMHO is the most difficult trade to make. I like it.

The two trades would move all of the players I would like to move except Grant. As Grant's contract makes him almost impossible to trade, that's not surprising. The Lakers would have a huge hole at PG, but they would have a slew of young players - Mihm (25), Boozer (23), Odom (25), Bryant (26), Jones (26), Cook (24), Vujacic (21), Bender (24), Borchardt (24), maybe Walton (25) and their #10 pick. That gives them a large number of options for filling that last hole.

Posted on a thread at LG.net