Thoughts on how Mitch rebuilt the Lakers

Posted on LakersGround.net on 8/10/06.

MIMLaker wrote:
Thanks, I appreciate the response. But here's where i'm really starting to get annoyed with management.

I feel like they aimed low in the alst 2 off-seasons. They shook things up by signing Phil, true, but they seemingly didn't want to "rebuild on the fly." In the past two eyars, what talents have they added on the floor?

Sasha
Mihm*
Atkins
Jones
McKie
Bynum
Turiaf
Von Wafer
Kwame
Profit
Smush

Out of all of those additions, only Mihm and Kwame are probably capable of producing heavy minutes for the team this year, and Mihm is repeatedly injured. Sasha is still a wildcard, given his shaky shot and thin frame.

Why didn't they sign/ acquire moderately-priced talent in the MLE to $9M range to start, rather than go for the cheap or the brittle? A LOT can be pinned on the 2007/08/10 plans.

MIM

I hate to jump in someone else's argument, but what the @#@$ are you talking about, MIM? "[T]hey seemingly didn't want to 'rebuild on the fly.'"? What does that mean? The Lakers had one season out of the playoffs and they were on a pace to possibly make the playoffs but things feel apart after Rudy quit and Odom was injured. I would consider that "rebuilding on the fly". Why don't you?

Were you really expecting the Lakers to draft someone "capable of producing heavy minutes for the team" with the 27th pick in 2004 and the 37th and 39th pick in 2005? Profit was a throw in on the Kwame trade and that did much better than expectations. Atkins was acquired because the Lakers were trading their PG to get Mihm and he was traded the next off-season.

Look, each off-season since the Shaq trade, Mitch has targeted one player who wanted to acquired. In 2004, it was Mihm. In 2005, it was Kwame. In 2006, it was Radmanovic. In the 2005 draft, Mitch opted to take a project C because he felt was the best prospect long-term available when he would pick. All the rest of the players on your list (except McKie) were acquired with late draft picks, as throw-ins in trades or as undrafted free agents (you left out Green). Rather than praising Mitch for getting something useful out of next to nothing, you are bashing him.

Followed up with on LakersGround.net on 8/10/06.

MIMLaker wrote:
Hey, Dennis, long time.

I haven't had much to say.

MIMLaker wrote:
Hope all is well with you.

I have a 10 month old who wakes up many times a night, destroying my sleep. Other than walking around like a zombie, I am doing great.

MIMLaker wrote:
Believe me, Dennis, I am trying to be reasonable. I hope you know me to not be a 24/7 Mitch basher.

I know you are. To me, you are one of the better posters on this board. That's why I was surprised when you wrote what seemed to me as demanding a ridiculous amount from Mitch.

MIMLaker wrote:
I question it in that Mitch, Dr. Buss, and mgmt. tried to rebuild but still save room for '07/ '08/ '10. Granted, Mitch got a ton of new talent coming in with Mihm, Atkins, Lamar, and Caron. Bold moves.

However, once Banks fell apart and Vlade went down, Mitch sort of stopped. The job wasn't done yet. From then on, they were looking to just buy time.
:
What I did NOT agree with was the decision to only acquire an unproven, untested, limited PG in Tierre Brown once Banks fell through. We went from journeyman starter to barely CBA-level player in the rotation in no time. There wasn't a better PZG than teirre availble for the minimum that year?

Look - the Lakers took gambles. Mihm was a gamble. Tierre was a gamble. Kwame was a gamble. The 2007 plan was a gamble. Some gambles work, some gambles don't. Mitch is wise enough to have kept failed gambles from hurting the team. It's not like he signed Jerome James to a max MLE or traded for Steve Francis.

MIMLaker wrote:

Dennis_D wrote:
Look, each off-season since the Shaq trade, Mitch has targeted one player who wanted to acquired. In 2004, it was Mihm. In 2005, it was Kwame. In 2006, it was Radmanovic.

Agreed -- but why should it be only ONE each year? Adding only one piece at a time is what occurs when you're already at the top; I think Dr. Buss, et al, failed to realize how far we were falling without Shaq, Phil, and the rest of the Core 5. The championship teams had a wealth of talent, but that wealth was locked up in mostly 3-4 players.

Granted, Mitch got a BOATLOAD in 2004, but he wasn't done by a long shot.

Doesn't it make more sense to accumulate as much different, reasonably-priced talent (i.e. not 5 SFs) as possible to allow for flexibility in trades? Without Shaq, Fox, Fish, et al., we had a whole HOST of needs. Filling the needs one player at a time should be the minimum; two at a time (i.e. rebounder and shooter; PG defense and shotblocker) is more ideal, with non-brittle talent, with an emphasis on speed, quickness, and defense, is committing to rebuilding.

I would say that probably because there is usually only one good opportunity each off-season. Mihm and Kwame were both lottery picks who had been disappointing while on their rookie contract and were RFA's. They were the only ones each of those off-seasons. There was no player like that this off-season.

I have no problems with not signing a max MLE free agent for two years because:
1. I think most MLE's aren't worth what they get paid
2. There is heavy competition for the ones that are, so why would they go to a rebuilding ball club?
3. The 2007 plan was still a possibility

MIMLaker wrote:
But to rebuild on the fly, I think, means you get talent that can produce NOW, in addition to 2-4 years from now. Last year, the only present-tense talent we got was Kwame, and he didn't show us anything to write home about until March.

And how exactly are you suppose to get talent than can produce NOW and in addition to 2-4 years? Pick them out at the Playas-'R-Us store? Every team in the NBA is looking for that type of player. My feeling is that if you go out and get a several players each season that can contribute NOW, you wind up with the Knicks.

MIMLaker wrote:
The thing is, I believe the decision to not acquire talent for fear of losing cap space (Daniels, Watson, etc.) or to trade away somewhat proven talent for fear of being unable to sign them later (Butler, possibly Mihm), has hamstrung us.

For example, we traded Caron because we couldn't presumably afford a long deal for him, and so we can move LO to the 3 spot. What happens? We see LO flourish more at the 4 spot, and we end up using the MLE this year on a 3.

We sign Kwame to be a 4 and move LO to the 3. What happens? Kwame is a better 5, and now we don't know fi we can keep Mihm 'cause we won't want to pay him.

When you gamble, you some times get results that you weren't expecting. When Mitch signed Mihm, he kept the contract short in case Mihm turned out to be a bust. I am sure Mitch thought that if Mihm played like he has played, the Lakers would be willing to pay what it takes to re-sign him. How could Mitch have known that he would pick up two quality centers the next off-season and wouldn't be able to afford three when Mihm's contract expired? Now, it looks like Mitch should have signed Mihm to a longer contract, but hindsight is 20/20.

MIMLaker wrote:
And, once again, just like 2004, we're looking for a solid PG. We're going in circles, or spinning wheels.

How long did the Lakers look for a solid PF? Odom has been the first successful non-aged PF since they traded Perkins. Solid starters don't fall off trees.

MIMLaker wrote:
Two years ago, the MLE was only used for two years on an aging C who played 7 games for us.

Last year, the MLE was only partially used for two years on an aging guard who has played 4 games for us.

Both years, we could have conceivably added genuine, healthy, productive talent. Instead, we went cheap to save cap space flexibility.

Or we could have had to overpay to get someone to join a rebuilding ball club and then been stuck with an overpaid player that no one is willing to take off our hands. My impression is that Buss is not willing to pay the luxury tax, so to have a non-starter earning max MLE money would limit the Lakers capability.

Comments on an article on Gerald Green as a smokescreen

Posted on LakersGround.net on 6/27/06.

LakerSailor wrote:
This article is horrible. First of all you can't assume the Lakers weren't high on Green before they made the promise to Bynum. You can't go back on draft promises and so they had to let Green slide on by. Green looked spectacular in the time he had towards the end of the season, throwing down 10X the spectacular dunks that Bynum did. Thirdly, the whole tone is wrong, acting like the whole Green thing was a smokescreen, like Mitch planned it all. What an absolute joke. Mitch is nowhere near that savvy. Green was a top pick by nearly every scout and expert out there, he's just they dropper and steal of that draft..

My recollection is that both Portland and the Lakers wanted to draft high school players last draft. Together, they concocted the rumor that the Lakers were going to trade up with Portland in order to nab Gerald Green. The idea being that if a team was going to try to beat the Lakers to their pick, they would take the wrong guy.

So, based upon my recollection:

• The Lakers weren't high on Green before they made the promise to Bynum
  
• The whole Green thing was a smokescreen
  
• Mitch and John Nash did plan it all
  
• Mitch is that savvy

This season was a lost season for Green. He had an underwhelming summer league, an underwhelming training camp, an underwhelming pres-season, didn't play a minute of NBA ball, got sent down to the NBDL and had an epiphany. Came back to the Celtics with a better attitude and started getting a few minutes around the end of quarters (with the exception of the 2/22 game against Phoenix where GG played 23 minutes and scored 13). Starting 3/29, the Celtics threw in the towel on the season and gave GG double-digit minutes in 10 of the last 11 games. None of the last 11 games were meaningful and they resembled summer league games in terms of the talent playing and the quality of play. I am very doubtful as to whether stats from such games are worthy of scrutiny.

Looking at his stats, two things stand out:
1. He is poor at shooting the 3, even though his jump shot is supposed to be his biggest strength
2. He is a really poor rebounder for someone who is 6'8"
But again, it's hard to put much faith into his stats given how his minutes came about.

So the 20 year old GG couldn't earn significant minutes in meaningful games all season long. Now, it's a question of how strong is his work ethic. He didn't show any work ethic prior to going to the NBDL, having gone from shooting 40% while coming off the bench in summer league games to shooting 40% while coming off the bench in NBDL games. His work ethic was better after he came back, but will his desire to improve fade as the memories of the NBDL fade? Given how poor is work ethic was before, I am pessimistic that he will work hard enough to be able to overcome the rawness to his game.

Followed up by this post on LakersGround.net on 6/27/06.

LakerSailor wrote:
Green is a HS player, same as Bynum.

Green was a 5th year HS player and is 21 months older than Bynum.

LakerSailor wrote:
What meaningful minutes did Bynum get? Bynum would have been better served going to the NBDL IMHO. There he could actually learn some skills instead of riding the pine all day.

I think Bynum had some injury issues in the second half of the season. Also, going to the NBDL would not necessarily had helped much as the Ft. Worth NBDL team didn't play the triangle and didn't have a big man coach like Kareem.

LakerSailor wrote:
The main problem with this article is why bother with some smokescreen if you were planning on drafting A Bomb the whole time? No one in the top 9 had A Bomb even in the discussion so Mitch comes up withthis genius plan to fool everyone into thinking he was going to draft someone else when the guy he really wanted had a 99% chance of being there the whole time? what a colossal waste of time and energy.

From the LA Times blog:

Mitch Kupchak wrote:
Last year we were at ten, and I'd have felt more comfortable if we could have gotten to eight, although we got the player we wanted at ten.

So, Mitch was concerned that Bynum wouldn't last until 10. That's why the smokescreen.

LakerSailor wrote:
That's why this article is beyond horrible and just another example of rah-rah "reporting" and homer revisionism..

How so? The Lakers really did convince most of the draft "experts" that they were going to take Gerald Green. Mitch was successful in deploying his smokescreen and wound up with the player he wanted.

Umm, you seemed to have formed an opinion based upon certain "facts" and aren't adjusting when told that those "facts" weren't correct. And then you are slamming the reporter for "revisionism".

The Four Main Purposes of a Summer League Team

Posted on LakersGround.net on 6/23/06.

1. Be Lakers basketball 101 for new players
Summer league is an opportunity to teach new players the Lakers offense, defense and conditioning drills. In training camp, vets are going to be there who already know all this information, so doing this teaching in training camp isn't as productive.

2. Show the new players what they must work on before training camp
A player will work much harder on improving on a skill if he can see in games that his current skill level isn't sufficient.

3. Pencil in minutes per game for the new players
Based upon how his players play, a GM will pencil in minutes per game to determine holes in his line up. Then, based upon the penciled MPG's, the GM knows what trades/signings he needs to make. For example, the Lakers were a lot less concerned about their PG position last season after watching Smush in the SPL.

4. Find promising free agents to invite to training camp
There are players that weren't drafted or once played on another NBA that could possibly make the opening day roster. Summer camp is a chance to identify such players.

Another way to look at a summer league team is that it is primarily about your first round pick(s), then of secondary importance is your second round picks and bench players from last season, then third in importance is possible training camp invites.

Overall, I think it would be a waste to have Smush play in the SPL. The Lakers should be focusing on players that they need to know more about.

Horace Grant's value to the Lakers

Posted on LakersGround.net on 5/29/06.

EHL_2 wrote:
You think the Lakers might not have won the championship in 2001 when they were one 20 foot fade-away Iverson jumper away from sweeping the entire postseason? No, I'd have to say they would have done just as well. Not like Horry was old in 01, so he could have certainly played the minutes, and of course all Madsen would have had to do was be a defensive nuisance, that team wasn't lacking any scorers.

And it's not like they couldn't have picked up another PF in 01.

How close did the Lakers come to not winning the championship the prior season? They had to go to a game 5 (out of 5) to win against the Kings and it took a Portland collapse in the fourth quarter of game 7 for the Lakers to advance to the NBA Finals. The next season, the only significant personnel change was adding Horace Grant and the Lakers had the greatest playoff run over. But you think that Horace wasn't a significant contributor.

Horry had bad knees by the '00-'01 season and was particularly bothered by playing on floors over hockey ice. Playing extended regular season minutes would wear Horry out. That is why they needed a PF who could play extended minutes. Grant played the third most minutes on the team and let Horry play essentially the same minutes as the prior season. The three teams the Lakers met before the NBA Finals all had All-Star caliber PF's and the Lakers swept them all. But you think that Horace at PF wasn't a significant contributor.

The next season, without Horace Grant but with Samaki Walker, the Lakers barely made it into the NBA Finals, having to win Game 7 in Sacramento. But you think that Horace wasn't a significant contributor.

Comparing Kupchak and Buford

Posted on LakersGround.net on 5/18/06.

I common attitude I see on this board is that Kupchak should be fired and someone as good as RC Buford should be hired. The problem with that logic is that Mitch is as good as RC Buford. Look at their records and see.

There are a lot of parallels between Kupchak and Buford - both were made GM after assisting to build a championship caliber club and both won championships with their clubs. Mitch took over after the '99-00 season won two NBA championships, lost in the Western Conference Semis, lost in the NBA Finals and then rebuilt the team. The Lakers averaged 55 wins over those four years. Buford won a NBA championship, lost in the Wester Conference Semis, won an NBA championship and is a favorite for winning again. The Spurs averaged almost 60 wins over those four years.

Let's look at what each GM started with. First Kupchak. Below is the age of '99-'00 Lakers Top 5 in terms of minutes as of
2/1/2000:
Shaquille O'Neal - 27
Glen Rice - 32
Kobe Bryant - 21
Ron Harper - 36
A.C. Green - 36
Average: 30.4

Top 9 is the above plus:
Derek Fisher - 25
Robert Horry - 29
Rick Fox - 30
Brian Shaw - 33
Average: 29.9

Top 12 is the above plus:
Travis Knight - 25
Devean George - 22
John Salley - 35
Average 29.25

Here is the age of the '01-'02 Spurs Top 5 in terms of minutes as of 2/1/2002:
Tim Duncan - 25
David Robinson - 36
Tony Parker - 19
Steve Smith - 32
Antonio Daniels - 26
Average 27.6

Top 9 is the above plus:
Malik Rose - 27
Bruce Bowen - 30
Terry Porter - 38
Charles Smith - 26
Average 28.8

Top 12 is the above plus:
Danny Ferry - 35
Cherokee Parks - 29
Stephen Jackson - 23
Average 28.8

Also, the Spurs had the rights to Manu Ginobili, 24, but he hadn't made it to the NBA yet.

Clearly, Buford started with a much younger team and with more trading pieces outside of his core than Mitch did. The Lakers Top 5 is almost 3 years older than San Antonio's Top 5. If you consider the Lakers core to be Shaq, Kobe, Fisher and Horry and the Spurs core to be Duncan, Parker, Ginobili and Bowen, the Lakers core averaged 25.5 years old compared to 24.5 for the Spurs. However, that is misleading because Horry (because of bad knees) and Shaq (because he won't keep himself in shape) started declining early and Bowen hasn't started declining yet. The Laker players outside their core that had trade value were Glen Rice (32), Rick Fox (30) and Devean George (22). None of those players had much trade value. The Spurs players outside their core that had trade value were Steve Smith (32), Antonio Daniels (26), Malik Rose (27) and Stephen Jackson (23). Daniels got a full MLE contract that last off-season, Rose is a solid backup PF and Jackson is a starter for the Pacers.

Drafting
Kupchak's picks during the contending years were below. To make the comparison apples-to-apples, I am only going to look at the contending years:
2000
West's pick was Mark Madsen
2001
No Draft Picks
2002
Kareem Rush (20)
'02-'03: 11.5 mpg in 76 games, 3.0 ppg on .393 shooting, .279 from 3, 1.2 rpg, 0.9 apg
'03-'04: 17.3 mpg in 72 games, 6.4 ppg on .440 shooting, .348 from 3, 1.2 rpg, 0.8 apg
2003
Brian Cook (24)
'03-'04: 12.6 mpg in 35 games, 4.4 ppg on .475 shooting, 2.9 rpg, 0.6 apg
Luke Walton (32)
'03-'04: 10.1 mpg in 72 games, 2.4 ppg on .425 shooting, .333 from 3, 1.8 rpg, 1.6 apg

Buford's picks have been:
2002
Wasn't GM yet and pick was traded
2003
No Draft Picks
2004
Beno Udrih (28)
'04-'05: 14.4 mpg in 80 games, 5.9 ppg on .444 shooting, .408 from 3, 1.0 rpg, 1.9 apg
'05-'06: 10.9 mpg in 54 games, 5.1 ppg on .455 shooting, .343 from 3, 1.0 rpg, 1.7 apg
Romain Sato (52)
Has not played in the NBA and was waived on 2/24/05
2005
Ian Mahinmi (28)
Has not played in the NBA

Hand down, Kupchak's picks during the contending years produced more in the contending years than Buford's picks.

Trades
Mitch made three trades during the contending years:
9/25/00 - Traded Glen Rice, Travis Knight and the '01 first round draft pick in a four team trade for Horace Grant, Greg Foster, Chuck Person and Emanual Davis. The draft pick turned out to be the #27 and was used by Memphis to draft Jamaal Tinsley. I am not sure what happened to Chuck Person or Emanual Davis (were they waived by the Lakers?) as HoopsHype doesn't have this trade happening.

This was a steal as Rice was about to exercise his option to get out of his contract and Travis Knight was a total waste with 3 years, $10.8 million to go on his contract (he would play one more NBA game). Horace Grant started 77 games for the Lakers and then left as a free agent. Greg Foster only played 451 minutes for the Lakers, but he would be traded later.

6/28/01 - Traded Greg Foster for Lindsey Hunter
Derek Fisher apparently had suffered another injury in the '01 off-season and Hunter was picked up as insurance. Lindsey Hunter started 47 games for the Lakers, but shot only 38.2%. Greg Foster played 6 games for Milwaukee, who mainly did the move to increase financial flexibility. Again, a steal.

6/26/02 - Traded Lindsey Hunter and the #27 pick to Toronto for Tracy Murray and the #20 pick
The #27 pick turned out to be Chris Jeffries and the #20 pick turned out to be Kareem Rush. Jeffries was out of the NBA after two unimpressive seasons. See Rush's statistics above. Hunter only played 29 games for Toronto. Murray only played 192 minutes for the Lakers. A steal, but would have been an incredible steal if Tayshaun Prince had been selected instead of Kareem Rush.

RC Buford:
8/5/02 - Traded Antonio Daniels, Charles Smith and Amil McCaskill for Erick Barkley, Steve Kerr and 2003 second round pick
Daniels would not do well in Portland, but would resume his solid 6th man career in Seattle. Charles Smith would play 3 games for Portland before leaving the NBA. Eric Barkley would be traded shortly. The 36 year old Steve Kerr would average 12.7 mpg in one season with San Antonio before retiring. Overall, a bad trade for both teams.

10/3/02 - Traded a second round pick for Mengke Bateer
Bateer played 46 minutes for the Spurs

10/25/02 - Traded Erick Barkley for future considerations
As Barkley hasn't played in the NBA since, I doubt that San Antonio got anything.

6/27/03 - Traded 2003 #28 pick for future #1 pick
The 2003 pick was Leandro Barbosa, a key reserve for the Suns for the last 3 seasons. The future #1 pick became the #28 pick in 2005, which Buford used to select Ian Mahinmi, who hasn't played in the NBA. Overall, a steal for Phoenix.

7/24/03 - Traded Danny Ferry for Ron Mercer and Hedo Turkoglu
I assume that Danny Ferry was an expiring contract and he never played in the NBA again. Ron Mercer played 39 games for the Spurs and was waived on 2/27/04. Turkoglu played 26 mpg and shot a career low 40.6% for the Spurs. Turkoglu would then leave as a free agent after the '03-'04 off-season. Buford got some value for an expiring contract, but not much.

6/25/04 - Traded a 2005 second round pick for the draft rights to Viktor Sanikidze
Sanikidze has not played in the NBA. The second round pick became the #59 in the draft and was used on Cenk Akyol of Turkey, who has not played in the NBA. A unimportant trade for both teams.

2/24/05 - Traded Malik Rose and two conditional #1 picks for Jamison Brewer and Nazr Mohammed
Malik Rose was an overpaid, undersized back up PF. The conditional picks turned into the #29 pick in the 2006 draft and I can't tell if another is still owed. Brewer was immediately waived. Mohammed averaged 18 mpg in 23 games in the '04-'05 off-season and averaged 17.4 mpg in 80 games in the '05-'06 off-season. The Spurs appear to have picked up a comparable player that is taller and three years younger at the cost of 2 last first round draft picks. Looks like a break even trade.

Overall
All three of Kupchak's trades were steals. Buford has made two bad trades, three unimportant trades, a decent trade and a break even trade. Hands down, Kupchak is the better trader.

Major FA Signings
First, Kupchak's free agent signings:
8/25/00 - Isaiah Rider
'00-'01: 18.0 mpg in 67 games, 7.6 ppg on .426 shooting, .370 from 3, 2.3 rpg, 1.7 apg
29 the season he signed. A tremendous talent but a knucledhead his entire NBA career. Phil watched him closely and eventually gave up on him and he was waived. He played 10 more games in Denver before leaving the NBA for good.

?/?/?? - Mike Penberthy
'00-'01: 16.1 mpg in 53 games, 5.0 ppg on .414 shooting, .396 from 3, 1.2 rpg, 1.3 apg
'01-'02: 4.0 mpg in 3 games, 1.7 ppg on .500 shooting, 0.7 rpg, 0.7 apg
26 the season he signed. He could shot the 3 and not much else.

7/21/01 - Mitch Richmond
'01-'02: 11.1 mpg in 64 games, 4.1 ppg on .405 shooting, .290 from 3, 1.5 rpg, 0.9 apg
36 the season he signed. He had been in decline for a while and was done when the Lakers signed him.

7/21/01 - Samaki Walker
'01-'02: 24.0 mpg in 69 games, 6.7 ppg on .512 shooting, 7.0 rpg, 1.3 bpg
'02-'03: 18.6 mpg in 67 games, 4.4 ppg on .420 shooting, 5.5 rpg, 0.8 bpg
25 the season he signed. Hands of brick. Was a flop with the Lakers. Went on to play with 3 other NBA teams.

7/16/03 - Gary Payton
'03-'04: 34.5 mpg in 82 games, 14.6 ppg on .471 shooting, .333 from 3, 4.2 rpg, 5.5 apg
35 the season he signed. Never understood the triangle, close to uncoachable, a prickly person who the Lakers were happy to trade after this season, but a talent still nonetheless.

7/16/03 - Karl Malone
'03-'04: 32.7 mpg in 42 games, 13.2 ppg on .483 shooting, 8.7 rpg, 3.9 apg
40 the season he signed. Was great when he was on the court, but his body was breaking down and he suffered an untimely injury in the playoffs.

7/28/03 - Horace Grant
'03-'04: 20.1 in 55 games, 4.1 ppg on .411 shooting, 4.2 rpg, 1.3 apg
38 the season he signed. A dinosaur that provided minutes off the bench

10/1/03 - Byron Russell
'03-'04: 13.1 mpg in 72 games, 4.0 ppg on .402 shooting, .384 for 3, 2.0 rpg, 1.0 apg
33 the season he signed. The Lakers hoped he would provide more, but he shot miserably for the Lakers.

Free agent signings has been Kupchak's weakness. It is hard to give Kupchak credit for the signing of Payton and Malone as they made the choice on their own. No free agent provided significant help for more than one season.

Now, Buford's free agent signings:
8/27/02 - Kevin Willis
'02-'03: 11.8 mpg in 71 games, 4.2 ppg on .479 shooting, 3.2 rpg, 0.3 bpg
'03-'04: 7.8 mpg in 48 games, 3.4 ppg on .467 shooting, 2.0 rpg, 0.2 bpg
40 the season he signed. A dinosaur who contributed for two seasons off the bench

11/7/02 - Devin Brown
'02-'03: 3.1 mpg in 7 games, 1.7 ppg on .500 shooting, 1.0 rpg, 0.3 apg
'03-'04: 10.8 mpg in 58 games, 4.0 ppg on .434 shooting, .286 from 3, 2.2 rpg, 0.6 apg
'04-'05: 18.5 mpg in 67 games, 7.4 ppg on .423 shooting, .372 from 3, 2.6 rpg, 1.4 apg
24 the season he signed. My understanding is that Brown was a local boy who begged for an opportunity and then made good on it. Was waived during the '02-'02 season and went to play in Denver. Came back to the Spurs the next season and steadily improved. Left as a free agent and went to Utah.

7/16/03 - Rasho Nesterovic
'03-'04: 28.7 mpg in 82 games, 8.7 ppg on .469 shooting, 7.7 rpg, 2.0 bpg
'04-'05: 25.5 mpg in 70 games, 5.9 ppg on .460 shooting, 6.6 rpg, 1.7 bpg
'05-'06: 19.0 mpg in 80 games, 4.5 ppg on .515 shooting, 3.9 rpg, 1.1 bpg
27 the season he signed. A little better than Samaki Walker, but signed to a much bigger, longer contract. The word last off-season was that the Spurs were willing to trade him for any expiring contract.

7/24/03 - Robert Horry
'03-'04: 15.9 mpg in 81 games, 4.8 ppg on .405 shooting, .380 from 3, 3.4 rpg, 1.2 apg
'04-'05: 18.6 mpg in 75 games, 6.0 ppg on .419 shooting, .370 from 3, 3.6 rpg, 1.1 apg
'05-'06: 18.8 mpg in 63 games, 5.1 ppg on .384 shooting, .368 from 3, 3.8 rpg, 1.3 apg
33 the season he signed. Big Game Rob was a great pick up...if you look only at his playoff performance. In the '04 playoffs, he shot 46.5%, 36.4% from 3 and averaged 6.1 ppg and 6.3 rpg in 21.1 mpg. In the '05 playoffs, he shot 44.8%, 44.7% from 3 and averaged 9.3 ppg and 5.4 rpg in 26.9 mpg. Those numbers are way better than what he put up during the season.

10/31/03 - Jason Hart
'03-'04: 12.5 mpg in 53 games, 3.3 ppg on .447 shooting, 1.5 rpg, 1.5 apg
23 the season he signed. Played for the Spurs in the '01-'02 season, was out of the NBA one season, played for the Spurs, played 25.5 mpg for Chicago in the '04-'05 season, then 12.4 mpg for Sacramento in the '05-'06 season.

7/15/04 - Brent Barry
'04-'05: 21.5 mpg in 81 games, 7.4 ppg on .423 shooting, .357 from 3, 2.3 rpb, 2.2 apg
'05-'06: 17.0 mpg in 74 games, 5.8 ppg on .452 shooting, .396 from 3, 2.1 rpb, 1.7 apg
33 the season he signed. A solid veteran bench presence.

8/4/04 - Tony Massenburg
'04-'05: 11.5 mpg in 61 games, 3.2 ppg on .407 shooting, 2.7 rpg
37 the season he signed. Another dinosaur to provide minutes off the bench.

8/29/05 - Nick Van Exel
'05-'06: 15.2 mpg in 65 games, 5.5 ppg on .397 shooting, .357 from 3, 1.4 rpg, 1.9 apg
34 the season he signed. Nick the Quick was done when he signed up.

9/2/05 - Michael Finley
'05-'06: 26.5 mpg in 77 games, 10.1 ppg on .412 shooting, .394 from 3, 3.2 rpg, 1.5 apg
32 the season he signed. A real steal, but can't give Buford much credit as Finley much credit like you can't give Kupchack credit for Payton and Malone.

Buford's biggest successes were Horry and Barry, with Horry providing value in the playoffs. None of these signings provided the team with a shot of youth.

Minor FA Signings
Just for completeness, here are Kupchack's minor free agent signings during the contending years:
?/?/?? - Jelani McCoy
?/?/?? - Joe Crispin
7/26/02 - Jannero Pargo
8/14/02 - AJ Guyton
8/23/02 - Soumaila Samake
9/18/02 - Guy Rucker
7/24/03 - Jamal Sampson
1/14/04 - Ime Udoka
1/30/04 - Maurice Carter

Here are Buford's minor free agent signings:
11/20/02 - Anthony Goldwire
7/30/03 - Anthony Carter
9/29/03 - Alex Garcia
11/17/03 - Sean Marks
1/9/04 - Charlie Ward
?/?/?? - Shane Heal
3/8/04 - Matt Carroll
8/25/04 - Linton Johnson
10/27/04 - Mike Wilks
3/17/05 - Dion Glover
4/4/05 - Glenn Robinson
8/2/05 - Fabricio Oberto
9/29/05 - Melvin Sanders
11/17/05 - Alex Scales

Overall Evaluation
Kupchak did better than Buford on drafting and trades. Buford did better than Kupchak on free agent signings. Neither GM was able to provide young contributors to take over for aging veterans like Jerry West consistantly did. I would rate Kupchak's performance as slightly better.

Comments on an evaluation of Mitch's 2005 off-season moves

Posted on LakersGround.net on 5/10/06.

Good post

Laker7 wrote:
1. Traded Caron Butler and Chuck Atkins for Kwame Brown and Laron Profit.
:
Grade B+.

The grade could increase if Kwame works hard this off-season

Laker7 wrote:
2. Signed Aaron McKie, Luke Walton, Devin Green, Smush Parker and Jim Jackson as free agents.
:
Grade C-.

What GM had better luck with free agents? San Antonio, but Finley and Van Exel were drawn by closeness to home and the likelyhood of rings. I think you have to rate him higher, like a B/B+.

Laker7 wrote:
3. Drafted Andrew Bynum, Ronny Turaif and Von Wafer.
:
Grade B

I would give him an incomplete as it is really too early to judge any of those players.

Laker7 wrote:
Outlook – Both Mitch and Phil have stated they are not looking to overhaul the roster. Given that the roster is young and now has some playoff experience (Odom, Luke and Brown with 2 years / Smush, Sasha, and Ronny with 1 year), that makes the most sense to me. I look for Rush to be signed for the vet minimum / LLE to back up Kobe and a PG to be signed with the MLE but I am not sure who. Cassell and Banks seem the most likely (Cassell wants a ring and to learn some coaching from Phil / Mitch has coveted Banks for a while) but I could be wrong. Jackson, Green and George will likely be gone. Profit will likely be signed to a vets minimum contract as well. If Mitch can pull off Cassell, Rush and Profit, he will get an A- in my grade book. Banks instead of Cassell only gets him a B.

I don't know what Mitch will do this off-season. Last off-season, he said that he was going after a former lottery pick who had been a disappointment so far. Everyone raise their hands who guessed Kwame Brown. I sure didn't.

Evaluaton of Kiki Vandeweghe's career as a GM

Posted on LakersGround.net on 5/10/06.

loseyourname wrote:

Mike@LG wrote:
Kiki at least has the huevos to pull moves that'll benefit the team despite risk.

You don't go from 27 wins to a playoff team in a short amount of time without doing so.

You're giving Kiki too much credit, Mike. In fact, I just looked at a Nuggets history page and it was actually Mike Evans, as interim GM in 2001, that traded Van Exel and La Frentz to clear all of the cap space. Kiki made one good move, trading McDyess for Camby and Nene, and inherited a team bad enough to get 'Melo and that already had a ton of cap space, which even you have to admit, he mostly wasted. Miller was a terrific acquisition, Martin was bonehead. Throwing away picks to get him was even more bonehead.

Could you show a link for the Nuggets history page. From Wikipedia.org:

On August 9, 2001; Vandeweghe was named to the Nuggets' General Manager position.

HoopsHype has his first deal on 9/25/01 and the Van Exel and LaFrentz deal on 2/21/02.

Kikki inherited a team that had gone 40-42 the year before. It's five starters were Nick Van Exel (29), Voshon Lenard (27), James Posey (24), Antonio McDyess (26) and Raef LaFrentz (24).

Almost right after he started, his best player McDyess went down with a potentially career ending injury. Kiki then blew up the team, trading away McDyess for Camby then giving away NVE and LaFrentz for scrub players and a late first round pick. The Nuggets plummeted to 27-55.

He wasted a #5 pick on Nikoloz Tskitishvili. His #7 pick Nene has shown potential, but Amare Stoudemire and Caron Butler were available and have had better careers. The Nuggets then stumbled to a 17-65 season.

Kiki drafted Carmelo over Bosh and Wade and signed Andre Miller and Earl Boykins as FA's. With Camby have his first healthy season in a long time, the Nuggets bounced back to a 43-39 and a 1-4 first round exit.

Kiki then acquired Kenyon Martin, the Nuggest collapsed, Kiki fired coach Bzdelik, fired interim coach Michael Cooper and eventually hired coach George Karl, the Ron Artest of NBA coaches. The Nuggets took off under Karl, improved to 49-33, but still lost 1-4 in the first round.

This season, the Nuggets have as their startes Andre Miller (29), Ruben Patterson (30), Carmelo Anthony (21), Kenyon Martin (28) and Marcus Camby (31). The bench is also veterans. The team was hot and cold in an easy division and struggled to a 44-38 record. George Karl has turned the team against him and the team lost 1-4 in the first round.

So, Kiki took a 40-42 team with a young set of starters and after five seasons (two of which were disasters), he has built an old 44-38 team. Not impressive in my book.

Lakers "Fair Salaries" from 82games.com

Posted on LakersGround.net on 4/20/06.

82games.com calculated a "fair salary" for each player in the NBA. Below are the Lakers' "fair salaries" (link), with their real salaries from HoopsHype.com in paranthesis:
Bryant $ 27.39 (15.95)
Odom $ 12.69 (11.47)
Parker $ 4.55 (0.75)
Cook $ 2.99 (0.87)
Mihm $ 2.73 (3.80)
George $ 2.21 (5.00)
Walton $ 1.93 (1.25)
Brown $ 1.67 (7.50)
Vujacic $ 0.54 (0.91)
Medvedenko $ 0.00 (3.00)
Turiaf $ -0.11 (???)
Profit $ -0.21 (0.84)
McKie $ -0.35 (2.50)
Jackson $ -0.38 (???)
Wafer $ -0.52 (0.40)
Green $ -0.54 (0.40)
Bynum $ -0.89 (1.89)

Thoughts on winning the NBA Executive of the Year

Posted on LakersGround.net on 4/4/06.

Let's take a look at it. I think the three biggest factors for winning Executive of the Year are (1) improvement in record, (2) big personnel move such as a trade or free agent signing that is given as the reason for the big improvement in record and (3) a record at least good enough for the playoffs.

Here are the teams that have improved their winning percentage over last year:
NO/Oklahoma City 0.266
Utah 0.162
Detroit 0.149
Atlanta 0.147
Milwaukee 0.141
LA Clippers 0.132
LA Lakers 0.118
New Jersey 0.099
Cleveland 0.091
San Antonio 0.061
Charlotte 0.050
Dallas 0.036
Memphis 0.019
Golden State 0.002

Look at the teams:
NO/Oklahoma City
Currently aren't making the playoffs. Big move was drafting the rookie of the year with the #3 pick. Not good enough

Utah
Currently aren't making the playoffs. Big move was having Kirilenko healthy. Not good enough

Detroit
Best record in the NBA. Big move was hiring a new coach. Not good enough

Atlanta
A terrible team that improved to really bad. Not good enough

Milwaukee
My #1 choice
* Drafted on of the top rookies (Andrew Bogut) with the #1 pick
* Fired coach Terry Porter
* Hired a new coach (Terry Stotts)
* Signed free agent Bobby Simmons
* Re-signed Michael Redd and Dan Gadzuric
* Acquired Jamaal Magloire

LA Clippers
My #3 choice
* Drafted Yaroslav Korolev with the #12 pick
* Signed free agent Cuttino Mobley
* Traded RFA Marko Jaric for Sam Cassell and a first round pick

LA Lakers
My #4 choice

New Jersey
No major personnel changes. Not good enough

Cleveland
My #2 choice
* Signed free agents Larry Hughes, Donyell Marshall and Damon Jones
* Re-signed Zydrunas Ilgauskas
* Traded Mike Wilks for Flip Murray

Note: LA Clippers' Elgin Baylor won the '05-'06 Executive of the Year award

Thoughts on Power Rankings

Posted on LakersGround.net on 4/4/06.

As a general rule, I dislike Power Rankings. What do they mean? Is it how likely they are to win the NBA championship? How the teams would perform in an round robin tournament held this very instant? Where they are likely to finish the season? Most Power Ranking I have seen are really the teams sorted by record and then adjusted for strength of schedule and short term momentum.

So, if you are using the last definition, you could use either here or here as your source for team ranking adjusted for strength of schedule. Then, you could have some rules about how much you adjust a team up or down based upon their last games and their current winning (or losing) streak).

Thoughts on a behind-the-scenese report on Spreewell

Posted on LakersGround.net on 3/28/06.

This is the part I found interesting:

kemi4kobes wrote:
According to Gist, Sprewell made the mistake of waiting on the Los Angeles Lakers at a time when the Houston Rockets, Denver Nuggets, Detroit Pistons and Cleveland Cavaliers all were expressing interest in signing him. But the Timberwolves and Lakers were unable to agree on a sign-and-trade deal that would satisfy both teams, and then other teams turned to other free agents.

I just can't believe this. I have always thought Sprewell wouldn't work for the Lakers because the two positions he plays (SG & SF) happen to be the spots for the Lakers' two best players. At back up SF, the Lakers already had George, Walton and Jones. If the Lakers played him in the back court, either Kobe would have to use all of his energy chasing PG's or the other team's PG would have a field day blowing by Spree. So, you are talking about more than the MLE for a guy who will play probably at most 15-20 mpg. Makes no sense.

Posted on LakersGround.net on 3/27/06.

82games.com recently did an article entitled "Blueprint for a NBA Championship Team". The key points on NBA Champions:
* 92% had a recent All-NBA 1st Team Selection
* 81% had a recent All-Defensive 1st Team Selection
* 92% had a Player Ranked in the Top 8 in Efficiency the Preceding Season
* 86% included at least one sidekick with a previous All-NBA or All-Defensive selection
* 57% included 2 or more sidekicks with a previous All-NBA or All-Defensive selection

Where do the Lakers stand on achieving the above blueprint?
* Kobe was selected All-NBA 1st Team after the '02-'03 season and probably will this season
* Kobe was selected All-Defensive 1st Team in '03-'04
* Kobe is #6 in Efficiency

So Kobe covers bullets #1 - #3. The issue is sidekicks or lack thereof. Is Lamar good enough to be an All-NBA selection? He currently ranks #17 in Efficiency. When I run the numbers, I get that he is #19. When you look at how he has played since the All-Star break, he is #15. The top 20 are:
Kevin Garnett
Elton Brand
Lebron James
Shawn Marion
Dwyane Wade
Kobe Bryant
Dirk Nowitzki
Allen Iverson
Steve Nash
Paul Pierce
Chris Bosh
Yao Ming
Gilbert Arenas
Pau Gasol
Marcus Camby
Tim Duncan
Jason Kidd
Dwight Howard
Lamar Odom
Richard Jefferson

The other question to me is can Kwame Brown become an All-Defensive player? He certainly has locked up a number of excellent PF's recently. However, his rebounding and shot blocking aren't very good for a player of his size.

Quick comparison of Lakers and Clippers record

Posted on LakersGround.net on 3/24/06.

Very Good Opponents
Lakers 5-7 (.417)
Clippers 3-8 (0.273)

Good Opponents
Lakers 5-8 (.385)
Clippers 5-5 (.500)

Average Opponents
Lakers 10-7 (.588)
Clippers 9-7 (.562)

Bad Opponents
Lakers 12-7 (.632)
Clippers 16-6 (.727)

Very Bad Opponents
Lakers 4-5 (.444)
Clippers 6-2 (.750)

Note: Definition of Opponents:
VG (Very Good) has a winning percentage >= .650
Good has a winning percentage < .650 and >= .550
Average has a winning percentage < .550 and >= .450
Bad has a winning percentage < .450 and >= .350
VB (Very Bad) has a winning percentage < .350

The Lakers are better than the Clippers against quality competition. The reason that the Clippers have a better record than the Lakers is that the Lakers lost far too many games to Bad and Very Bad opponents. Also, the Lakers have played so far a more difficult schedule than the Clippers.

GMing 101: the 15 basic rules

Posted on LakersGround.net on 3/15/06.

Rule #1 - Have at least 4 good bigs on your roster
The hardest thing in the NBA is to get good bigs on your roster. C's and PF's are snapped up early in the draft and tend to be signed to long term contracts. Your whole defensive scheme should start with how you want these guys to defend (see here for more). Bigs are so hard to come by that Chuck Nevitt was able to have a 12 year career when his only talent was that he was 7'5" (though he was great at juggling Cool Whip containers). You need to have 4, preferably 5 because if one goes down to injury, you are too thin to compete. Chicago has a great group of smalls with Gordon, Hinrich, Deng and Duhon, but they are out of the playoffs because they don't have any quality bigs besides Tyson Chandler and Chandler has had health issues this year.

What this means for the Lakers and their fans
The Lakers currently have 2 C's (Mihm, Bynum), a PF/C (Brown) 2 PF's (Cook, Turiaf) and a SF/PF (Odom). After Mitch traded Shaq, the bigs on the Lakers' roster were Cook, Odom and Medvedenko. Mitch has done a great job of rebuilding his supply of bigs through the draft and trades. At this point, I expect one of the bigs to be traded this off-season - probably Cook.

Rule #2 - Don't trade big for small
This is almost a corollary of Rule #1. When you trade a big for a small, you create a hole in your group of bigs. You shouldn't do so unless you have a plan to fill that hole. You can fill that hole through acquiring a free agent, the draft, another trade or promoting someone from the bench to start (if you are trading away a starting big man). If you don't have a plan for filling that hole, don't make the trade. Also, when you do trade big for small, you need to be getting more talent to offset the loss of size. For example, the Lakers traded two starters (Chucky Atkins and Caron Butler) for Kwame Brown, a RFA big that Washington wanted gone.

What this means for the Lakers and their fans
Getting RFA Chris Mihm (plus Chucky Atkins and Jumaine Jones) for Gary Payton (plus Rick Fox and a #1 pick) was a major league steal. Ainge should have gotten more ("Mitch, I will give you your starting center AND your starting point guard for an over-the-hill point guard you want gone, a guy who is going to retire and a draft pick that will probably be out of the lottery. And if you say yes in the next 5 minutes, I will throw in a player who will be your sixth man"). Mitch had to pay much more to get Kwame.

Rule #3 - Plan your salary structure years in advance
To me, the ingredients necessary to compete for the NBA championship are:
1. Have a quality big man
2. Have two to three All-Stars
3. Have an excellent coach
4. Have solid role players in spots 4-7

How do you get the quality big man and the two-three All-Stars? You have to do it through a combination of drafting well, trading well and being successful in signing free agents. You also have to keep the quality pieces you have on your team and not lose them to free agency while you are adding the new pieces. Doing all these things requires shrewd salary cap management.

An excellent salary cap structure is when your main contributors have long contracts and your role players have shorter, small dollar (MLE or less) contracts. For example, the Spurs have Tim Duncan has the highest salary ($15.8M) and is locked up for four seasons after this. Tony Parker has the second highest salary ($8.4M) and is locked up for five seasons after this. Ginobili is third with a $7.4M salary and is locked up for four seasons after this. Nesterovic has the Spurs' one bad contract, earning $6.7M this season and even more over the next 3 seasons. Mohammed is next at $5.5M and is a UFA after this season. The next five guys in order of salary (Barry, Bowen, Horry, Finley, Oberto) all make between $4.7M and $2.3M and are signed for two seasons after this. Udirh is on a cheap rookie contract. The rest of the roster (Van Exel, Marks, Sato, Sanders, Scales) have contracts that are cheap and end this year.

What you want to avoid is non-key starters and bench players having big, long contracts. When such players have big, long contracts, their trade value plummets as other teams aren't willing to pay so much for someone who doesn't contribute that much. The Knicks are the poster child for how not to have your salary structure. Jamal Crawford is a bench player and has a contract that pays big bucks for 5 more seasons ($10M in his last season). And he's the ninth highest paid player on the team. For every other team in the league, having a bench player with such a big contract would limit the team's ability to sign free agents and re-sign their own players.

Boston is probably a more instructional example. Paul Pierce, their All-Star, is their top paid player and his contract runs two more seasons (player option for the last). Wally Szczerbiak and Raef LaFrentz also have big, long contracts. Szczerbiak is overpaid and LaFrentz, who only averages 25 mpg, 7.8 ppg and 5 rpg, is really overpaid. Next season, the three of them will combine for $37M and $40M the season after that. The Celtics have three promising players on rookie contracts. Of them, Kendrick Perkins becomes an RFA in the '07 off-season and the other two (Delonte West and Al Jefferson) become RFA's in the '08 off-season. If the Celtics owners aren't willing to pay luxury tax (and they have been very salary conscious so far), then the Celtics won't be able to re-sign all three of their young players. They may be able to re-sign two if they stick to only dirt cheap free agents for the next three off-seasons.

Having an owner that is willing to pay luxury tax doesn't really help all that much. Back to Jamal Crawford - he is still overpaid for what he contributes. What team is going to be interested in trading for a big bucks player who can't even start on a 17-45 team? Adding Francis will further reduce Crawford's minutes, reducing his value even more. So, be willing to go into luxury tax for new players means that the trade value of your existing overpaid players will diminish.

What this means for the Lakers and their fans
Odom is getting paid to play like an All-Star and he needs to step up his play. If Odom plays like an All-Star, then the Lakers have an excellent salary structure. The 2007 plan will hopefully allow them to acquire another top notch player through an S&T without costing too much talent. I wish Parker had a longer contract and I really wish Mihm had a longer contract, as losing either to free agency would be a blow.

Rule #4 - Don't churn the roster
It takes a while to build chemistry in the NBA. You want your players to feel loyal to your team, so you must show loyalty to them. Some players take a while to develop and you don't want to see them blossom on some other team. A lot of fans want to trade half the roster every off-season. Doing so is counterproductive for the preceding reasons. You want to turnover 15-25% of your roster most years. You want to have some need blood in or your team will gradually get old and you will have to rebuild from close to nothing. You really only want to go over 25% when you are rebuilding and then do it for only one or two years. (Note: The numbers in this rule are based on the discussion of roster turnover in Dean Oliver's book, "Basketball On Paper")

Trading away your roster doesn't result in an improved roster. When you trade away players, you get players that other teams were willing to trade. In 1997, Don Nelson took over GM duties for the Mavericks mid-season and famously "fired" the whole team. Only Derek Harper played more than 50 games for the Mavericks that year. Of the 27 players that played for the Mavericks that year, only Michael Finley and Shawn Bradley stuck for more than 3 seasons.

What this means for the Lakers and their fans
Of the 17 players on the Lakers payroll at the end of the '03-'04 season (link), 6 were on the roster at the start of the next season and of those 6, George and Medvedenko hardly played and Rush was traded mid-season. Of the 15 players on the Lakers payroll at the end of the '04-'05 season (link), 9 were on the roster at the start of this season and one of those, Medvedenko, was recently cut. Bryant, George, Cook and Walton are the only players remaining from the '03-'04 season. That is a huge amount of churn. Combine that with three coaches in two seasons and it is really too much change.

The Lakers were forced to do such a massive roster turnover because most of the roster at the end of the '03-'04 season was either old (Payton, Fox, Malone, Grant, Russell) or weak on talent (Medvedenko, Rush, Sampson, Pargo, Carter, Udoka). Fisher got a ridiculous FA offer that the Lakers wisely didn't match. Shaq was past his prime and not worth the money he wanted to be paid. That left Bryant as the only starter talent worth keeping on the roster and George, Cook and Walton as the only bench players worth keeping (and I am not sure Walton is really worth keeping).

Sadly, there are a lot of Laker fans that feel that Mitch didn't make enough moves. They complain that Mitch should have made more trades or signed more free agents. They wanted Mitch to make some major moves during the season. They call for Mitch to be fired because they aren't patient enough to handle being a fan while the team is being rebuilt.

Hopefully, this off-season will be much less eventful and the players on the roster will be given time to improve and develop chemistry. I am hoping the Lakers re-sign George and Profit, then buy out McKie. They will add a player with Miami's first round pick. If they keep Wafer and Green, that would give them a roster of 15. If the Lakers do that, only one completely new player will have to be integrated into the team.

Rule #5 - When rebuilding, signing veteran FA's can be counterproductive
When rebuilding, you want to develop players that have the capability of being of value when the team is ready to compete again. Veteran FA's will either be out of the league or past their prime by the time the team is ready to compete again. Signing a veteran FA can be counterproductive in two ways. First, any minutes a veteran FA plays are minutes that could have been used to develop a player who will be of value when the team is ready to compete again. Secondly, if the team signs the veteran FA to a long term contract, that money won't be available to acquire talent when the team is ready to compete.

You have to realize that it is very hard to trade a disappointing free agent. To me, teams are willing to pay a salary premium if it means they can get a player without giving up anything. If a free agent then doesn't play as well as you hoped, no team is going to be interested in trading something of value for what is now an overpaid player. For example, if Golden State were to call Mitch up and ask if the Lakers have any interest in Derek Fisher, Mitch would point out that if they wanted to pay Derek Fisher that much money, they would have matched Golden State's offer. Disappointing free agents do get traded occasionally - I am still amazed that Jerry West traded for Travis Knight after he bombed in Boston - but not often enough to count on.

What this means for the Lakers and their fans
Many fans wanted Mitch to sign Watson or Daniels this off-season, but both of those players would have required long-term contracts to sign. Daniels is 31 and would be past his prime when the Lakers are ready to compete. Mitch's free agent signings - Divac and McKie - have been busts, but they haven't hurt the team.

Rule #6 - When rebuilding, keep your team around .500
When rebuilding, you have to avoid what I call "the death spiral". A young team starts losing -> the players lose confidence in themselves and their coach -> the players tune out their coach -> the players don't develop enough for the team to be able to compete -> cycle repeats. Nobody wants to coach a team in a "death spiral", so you can't get a quality coach to replace the coach that the team has lost confidence in. Once a team goes under .500, it can stay there for a very long time. The Clippers are trying to end 12 straight losing seasons. Golden State 11 straight losing seasons (going on 12). Atlanta 7 straight (going on 8).

When the Lakers rebuilt before, they went 43-39, 39-43 then 33-49. While competing, the Lakers let their veterans go and replaced them with young players. The young players learnt what it takes to win from the veterans they replaced. The Lakers then added good talent through the draft (Eddie Jones) and a trade (Cedric Ceballos) as well as a new coach (Del Harris) who was capable of molding the young team correctly, and suddenly the Lakers were competitive again.

What this means for the Lakers and their fans
Other than the collapse at the end of last season, the Lakers have stayed around .500 while overhauling their roster. It's hard to ask for more.

Rule #7 - When rebuilding, talent is the most important thing
Or why trading for Kwame Brown was a good idea. Vlade Divac had a European approach to conditioning that including smoking. Elden Campbell seemed allergic to hustle and would frequently disappear. Cedric Ceballos had an ego the size of the Forum and was a headcase to boot. Nick Van Exel was close to uncoachable. Anthony Peeler had legal problems while in college. It's no wonder Del Harris' hair was stark white. Yet, each of those players had talent that Harris was able to harness to make a competitive team. George Lynch was a great person, great heart, great hustle, but never really contributed. Lynch would have a solid career as a defensive specialist SF, but the Lakers needed scoring from the SF while he was on the team.

When you are rebuilding, you are short on talent and you need to take it in whatever form you can find it. You have to take a flyer on questionable players with talent. If you wait for the sure thing, you are going to be rebuilding a long time. Once you are competitive, then you can worry about how well the talent fits. As you have talented players, you can then trade them for other talented players that better fit the rest of the team (e.g. Ceballos for Horry).

What this means for the Lakers and their fans
The Lakers gambled in the 2004 off-season on acquiring former #7 pick Chris Mihm. The Lakers gambled in the 2005 off-season in acquiring former #1 pick Kwame Brown. Chris has been a pleasant surprise but Kwame has been a disappointment so far. He has incredible athletic skills, but doesn't make much use of them. I wish he had Cook's work ethic and Turiaf's fire, but if he did, the Lakers never would have had a chance to get him.

Rule #8 - Always consider if a role player fits your system
By role player, I mean the #3 player or lower. Someone who isn't important enough to change the offense to tailor to their skills. I recently read an interesting article about Antonio Daniels' struggles in Washington by (I believe) one of the 82games.com guys. It basically said that Daniels skills are the same as in Seattle, but the system in Washington requires him to do things he isn't good at. Glen Rice struggled as a Laker because he was used to having screens and picks set for him and the Lakers wanted him to be a spot up shooter. The flip side is that there may be some role player struggling on another team that will blossom on your team because he fits your system better than he fits the system of his current team (see Boris Diaw).

What this means for the Lakers and their fans
The triangle calls for a much different skill set than most NBA offenses. Mitch somehow saw that an obscure point guard named Smush Parker who had floundered on three different NBA teams would be a good fit for the Lakers.

Fans need to keep in mind that just because a player has good stats on one team doesn't mean that the player will put up similar stats for the Lakers.

Many Laker fans feel that if the Lakers hadn't traded for Kwame Brown, they could have trade Caron Bulter for Ron Artest. Once Phil was hired, Butler became the back up SG, where he wasn't going to get many minutes. He wasn't going to get any minutes at SF with Odom and George ahead of him on the depth chart. Slashing Butler's minutes would have reduced his trade value. Butler was at his peak trade value for the Lakers last off-season.

Rule #9 - Expiring contracts have little value in and of themselves and are topped by trade exceptions
I don't know how many times I have seen posters write about "valuable expiring contracts". Expiring contracts aren't valuable in and of themselves. They are just fillers that facilitate trades where other pieces are providing the value. Every NBA season, the vast majority of expiring contracts don't get traded. A good example of the lack of value of expiring contracts is last season when Atlanta wanted to trade Antoine Walker. Atlanta wanted back expiring contracts and a first round pick. The expiring contracts were just filler - it was the first round pick that was the value that Atlanta was interested in. Of course, Atlanta would have taken an useful player for Walker, but they knew no one was willing to offer that much.

What about trades like New York trading Hardaway (an expiring contract) for Francis? In this case, it isn't that the expiring contract had a significant value, it was that Francis had a near zero trade value. The only players you can get for an expiring contract are players that teams don't want any more.

Trade exceptions are more valuable than expiring contracts because the team that gets an expiring contract has to basically eat the contract and a trade exception avoids that. Why spend millions if you don't have to? I remember being frustrated that the Rockets got Mike James at the 2005 trade deadline instead of the Lakers, but the Rockets had a trade exception and the Lakers didn't even have an expiring contract to offer.

There are times when you can't make a trade for lack of an expiring contract (see the Mike James comment above). With the requirement for salary matching, there are times when a trade hinges on being able to toss in a filler player that costs the other team the absolute minimum. That makes expiring contracts useful, but not valuable.

The simple rule for trades is that "You have to trade value to get value" and expiring contracts don't have value.

What this means for the Lakers and their fans
I have seen a number of fans that were upset that Mitch didn't use any of the Lakers "valuable expiring contracts" this trade deadline. Again, they weren't valuable.

Rule #10 - Don't expect to add more than two pieces a year
Opportunities to add a player who can be a long term contributor don't happen that often. Realistically, it is unusual for there to be more than one or two such opportunities in a year. Trying to create opportunities when there aren't any will create unnecessary roster churn, may result in losing a slow developing player who was going to develop into a long term contributor, and frequently cause mistakes that set the team back. When the Lakers rebuilt back in '92-'94, West added Peeler one season, Lynch and Van Exel the next season, then Jones and Ceballos the next.

What this means for the Lakers and their fans
That Laker fans need to learn patience. Many Laker fans wanted Mitch to sign a free agent last summer, but there weren't any good candidates in last summer's free agent crop. Many fans want Mitch to trade, trade, trade when there are rarely going to be good trading opportunities. Promising pieces that the Lakers added this year are Kwame, Bynum, Turiaf, Profit and Parker. Wafer and Green are interesting projects. If only two of them turn into a long term contributors, that would be a very good off-season.

Rule #11 - Don't think of trading for rookies or deep bench players
Rookies don't get traded because of organizational commitment and information asymmetry. By organizational commitment, I mean that the decision on who to draft is a political decision within the NBA team and teams want to hang on to rookies to determine if the evaluation by the front office staff was correct or not. The success or failure of that rookie will result in "Attaboys!" or "Idiots!" being tossed around to members of the front office. Enough "Idiots!" and someone is fired. Enough "Attaboys!" and someone is promoted. Trade a rookie before he has had a chance to prove himself and his supporters in the front office will be able to say that they shouldn't be criticized for supporting that pick because the team gave up on the player too early.

By information asymmetry, I mean that the team that rookie is on knows far more about the rookie than any team that might acquire the rookie. Let's say that Danny Ainge calls up Mitch and offers to trade Gerald Green (their heavily hyped rookie who can barely make it off the bench on an injury depleted team) for Brian Cook. Well, Cook has played long enough for his skill, work ethic and coachability to be pretty well known. Ainge has probably heard through the player grapevine what kind of a locker room presence Cook is. Ainge also knows Green's skill, work ethic, coachability and locker room presence because he sees Green all the time. Mitch, on the other hand, can't know Green's skill, work ethic, coachability and locker room presence because Green doesn't have enough of a track record yet. If anything, Mitch should suspect that Green's skill, work ethic, coachability and locker room presence aren't that good, or why else would Ainge want to trade him? Ainge knows that trading Green for Cook benefits the Celtics. Mitch has no idea if trading Cook for Green will help the Lakers. Given the unequal amount of information, Mitch has to suspect that Ainge is trying to rob him and should pass on the trade.

I don't know why deep bench players don't get traded, but they don't. It would have been nice if the Lakers could have picked up Profit last season for perhaps a second round draft pick. Phoenix may have wanted to pluck Diaw off of Atlanta's bench last season. You don't see deep bench players get traded. The only reason I can think of is that trades take up so much time and focus of an organization that teams aren't willing to spend the time and focus on deep bench players.

What this means for the Lakers and their fans
Don't think of trying to acquire this off-season underperforming rookies like Deron Williams, Raymond Felton or Rashad McCants.

Rule #12 - It's very hard to trade players that you don't want
Many, many times I have seen posts along the lines of "[Player X] is garbage! The Lakers should trade him!" and the poster then suggests one or more possible trades. If a player really is garbage, why would any team want him? You have to trade value to get value. If you are going to put time and effort into coming up with a trade idea, start with a player who you think has value.

What this means for the Lakers and their fans
If you don't like Sasha or Cook, don't bother trying to think up trades for them. I don't really see this much on this board. I follow Celticsblog.com fairly closely and the fans there would post trade idea after trade idea for the despised Mark Blount while he was on their team but rarely post trade ideas for the players the fans actually liked.

Rule #13 - Always consider the realistic worst scenario
Back at the trade deadline, many people were debating whether the Lakers should acquire K-Mart. What would be the realistic worst scenario of acquiring K-Mart? That his knee would keep him from playing well enough to justify his mammoth contract. And if that happens, then the Lakers will not be able to trade K-Mart and they will never be able to get below the salary cap. That would severely hurt the Lakers ability to become a competitive team.

Lots of times, I have seen teams make moves assuming the best and then were hamstrung when an anticipated problem happened. An example of this would be New Jersey acquiring Dikembe Mutombo. Mutombo was getting up there in age, was slow getting up and down the court (which didn't fit in with Jason Kidd) and had a monster contract. He was a bust in New Jersey and his contract kept New Jersey from re-signing K-Mart. The Nets were forced to traded away K-Mart for some low draft picks.

By "realistic worst scenario", don't go, "Gee, what if player X suddenly drops dead from an undiagnosed medical condition?" Worry about what has been diagnosed or what is known. Another example - the Lakers were rumored to be interested in Eddy Curry. The Lakers were rumored to have lost out on Curry because they weren't willing to offer a contract longer than 2 years. The Lakers were considering the realistic worst scenario - that Curry would become unable to play because of his heart condition and decided that they only way to mitigate that risk was to offer a short contract. New York offered a 6 year contract, landed Curry and no other team is going to be remotely interested in him for years.

What this means for the Lakers and their fans
When posting trade ideas, think about the realistic worst scenario. I once posted how stupid I thought Orlando fans were for suggesting the Lakers would be willing to trade Mihm for Francis. Other posters thought it would be a great idea. Francis had worn out his welcome with two NBA teams - what if he didn't fit in with the Lakers? Probably no team would want to touch his monster contract. The Lakers would then be stuck with him regardless of how much they would want to get rid of him.

Rule #14 - Think of the impact of minutes for any new acquisition
A while back, I ripped an SI article where the writer said,

SI writer wrote:
It's hard to say how the addition of Sprewell would affect the Lakers, but it's fun to speculate. In his worst season -- last year with Minnesota -- Sprewell averaged 12.8 points, his lowest average since his rookie campaign. Think the Lakers could use a 13-point scorer in their lineup? With Kobe and Sprewell at the 2 and 3, the Lakers' backcourt would definitely create some matchup issues and possibly earn the Lakers at least a few more wins, which could be the difference between the lottery and the eighth spot in the West.

Yes, the Lakers could use a 13-point scorer in their line up, but the NBA doesn't allow a team to play 6 players at a time. If Sprewell plays, someone else doesn't. The SI writer didn't say who would sit so that Sprewell could. Would he sit Odom, who averages 14.1 ppg, 9.3 rpg and 5.3 apg? Would he slide Odom to PF and sit Cook and Brown? Cook provides more a shade more points per minute than Sprewell and Brown provides excellent man-to-man defense on the WC's many great PF's. Would he sit George? Devean doesn't score as well as Sprewell, but he provides a lot more defense and rebounding. When I considered who Sprewell would take minutes from, it appeared to me that adding Sprewell didn't improve the Lakers.

A lot of people were hoping that the Lakers would add Ron Artest. Again, you run into the same problem that Lakers already have their second best player playing SF and their best bench player playing there as well. Now, Artest would have improved the Lakers, but not as much as picking up a very good PG or PF.

What this means for the Lakers and their fans
People are already looking at the 2006 free agents. People need to think who there are going to sit before suggesting who the Lakers should sign. For example, if you think the Lakers should sign center DJ Mbenga, what Lakers center is going to sit or be traded? Mihm, Bynum or Brown? It's hard for me to see Mbenga being an upgrade over any of those three.

Rule #15 - The most important thing a GM does is select the right coach
A GM can build a talented roster, but if the coach doesn't know how to harness that talent, the team will be a disappointment. A GM can draft promising young talent, but if the coach doesn't know how to develop young players, they won't achieve their potential. Looking at roster moves, Jerry West has had in Memphis far more failures than successes. Yet, he has been successful in Memphis because he brought in coaches that knew how to get the most of the talent on the roster. A major, major reason for Joe Dumars success has been his brilliance in hiring coaches. Denver floundered until they hired George Karl last season. Golden State is stacked with talent, but is once again losing with first time pro coach Mike Montgomery. Yet, so many fans look only at roster moves when assessing a GM and not at the coaching moves.

You should hire a coach that fits your team. As your team changes, you shouldn't be afraid to change coaches. Del Harris was a great fit for a young Laker team that had promise but didn't know how to practice and didn't know how to win. He was a poor fit for a Shaq-Kobe team that needed the discipline and focus to compete for the championship. I think for young teams, a veteran coach is best. Someone who knows how to practice and how to win games and can provide the experience a young team lacks. For a veteran team, a young coach isn't a bad idea. Someone who the veterans can relate to and communicate with. I think a team with enough talent to compete for a championship needs a coach that will teach them how to stay focused 48 minutes a game, 82 games a year (there aren't many of those).

What this means for the Lakers and their fans
Phil Jackson is one of the greatest coaches in the NBA and the Lakers are fortunate to have him as coach. When he retires, the team will hopefully have enough experience that Brian Shaw will be able to be effective coaching them.

PS If you reply, please don't quote this entire post

Tyson Chandler vs Chris Mihm

Posted on LakersGround.net on 3/9/06.

Looking at the stats, I don't see what Wolf and Magic_Bryant see. I have a hard time imagining that Chandler is a much superior shot blocker and yet has the same blocks per game as Mihm. As for rebounding, Mihm has as Odom rebounding with him, so there are less rebounds for him to get. Chandler doesn't play with a good rebounder like Odom. So, even though Mihm gets far fewer rebounds than Chandler, the Lakers are a better rebounding team, getting 51.2% of rebounds compared to 50.7% for Chicago.

When I see a player scoring only 5.2 ppg in 26.7 mpg, I see an offensive liability. I haven't watched any Bulls games, but I would guess that the other team's centers get to play one man zone all the time, shutting down the paint. Mihm is not a liability on either side of the court.

I wonder what daring organizations do?

Posted on LakersGround.net on 2/15/06.

emplay wrote:
The Lakers have been a relatively conservative organization.

Hmmm...The Lakers traded for two RFA's that had been busts through their first four years (Mihm and Brown) and made them starters. They drafted with their highest draft pick since 1994 a high school kid who really didn't play much high school ball and whose teams never did anything while he was on it. Their draft pick before that was a 20 year old Slovenian. The starting PG this season is a player whose prior experience in the NBA was being a bust with three other NBA teams. They traded away their 6th man from last season to clear a roster spot for an undrafted rookie that doesn't have a jump shot.

If those are the actions of a relatively conservative organization, I wonder what daring organizations do?

If the Lakers didn't trade Shaq, their starting 5 would have been...

Posted on LakersGround.net on 2/10/06.

Assuming Kobe would have left as a free agent, the Lakers starting 5 would have been Shaq, Medvedenko, Walton, Rush, Payton with a bench of Cook and Vujacic (George didn't recover from his injury until late in the 2004 season). It's hard picturing that team making the playoffs.

We would have been able to offer only the MLE:
Shaq $29,464,288
Payton $5,408,700
Fox $4,928,625
George $4,500,000
Medvedenko $3,000,000
Rush $1,172,446
Cook $809,300
Walton $620,046
Vujacic $846,840

Total $50,750,245
link and link

Comments on a proposed trade for Al Harrington

Posted on LG.net on 2/09/06.

I try to give newbies some feedback on trade suggestions so that hopefully in the future they will post better ones.

paradox wrote:
Works contract wise. however, should we decide to re-sign harrington, rules out the 07 plan.

ATL trades: Al harrington, Josh childress

ATL recieves: Chris mihm, Devin george (exp), Bostjan nachbar, Sasha vujacic, 1st round pick from LAL

Do you mean Devean George?

paradox wrote:
Why? Al harrington will be gone for nothing at the end of the seasone. We all know mihm is legit. nachbar proved thet given PT he can be really nice and still very young, george is expiring (can be bought out), picks are good to have. ATL has a load of swing-man, and no bigs + no pg. they get both needs while loosing the least favourable (they rate starvin-marvin and josh smith better, i reckon).

Loosing? Do you mean losing? lousing? loosening?

OK, Atlanta is giving up Al Harrington, who will walk at the end of this season, and a non-starting swingman (and they have a glut of swing players). In return, they get (1) a solid starting center, (2) a back up PG/SG, (3) a back up SF, (4) a draft pick and (5) an expiring contract. A total steal for Atlanta. I think the best deal the Lakers would offer for Harrington is George, Cook and the Miami pick.

This is a stupid trade for the Lakers as Mihm is their only true C right now (Bynum is still years away) and they have 4 guys who can play PF (Brown, Odom, Cook, Turiaf). If the Lakers make a move, I think it will be to trade one of their PF's for a PG.