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.