For a league that so often closes rank to protect itself, a lot of people are willing to talk about the Los Angeles Lakers ... so long as their name isn't attached. Anonymous sources are a commonplace element in NBA media, and for good reason. For reporters to provide honest assessments, their sources need to be able to avoid the blowback. You may find it cowardly or distasteful, but it's essential to get an idea of what executives, agents and the like believe. Otherwise everything would just be "great player/coach/team/organization." It would be all platitudes.
However, the amount of shade that gets tossed the Lakers' way from non-Lakers parties is pretty stunning. Just a year ago that same kind of sources took apart Kobe Bryant in brutal fashion, claiming that Bryant was the reason free agents were turning the Lakers down, among other allegations.
This time, it's ESPN again, as various anonymous sources break apart what the Lakers have done, where they are, and where they're going. It's a well-researched piece which, in-between the withering criticism from various sources, attempts to provide the counter-argument, but the result is the same.
The Lakers don't come out looking good.
You should read the whole thing, but there are a few that deserve some inspection.
On the stark reality facing the team:
"If I'm a Lakers fan, that's the most concerning thing -- at no point in the past two or three years is there clear evidence on an organizational level that they've had some 'Come to Jesus' moment like, 'Wait a minute. Something is not structurally working the way it used to,'" an NBA analytics official said.
"In the last two or three years, they've been so far from their expectations every year, whether it's trades or wins or free agency, all these things are not happening the way they've been hoping. It sounds like they're just waffling after the fact, which is kind of the opposite of doing some soul-searching and figuring out a better way forward."
The problem is that the actual evidence doesn't point to either direction. The Lakers did pursue major free agency acquisitions, and were involved in trade talks for DeMarcus Cousins. However, they also drafted D'Angelo Russell and have kept Julius Randle, committing to build through them. They've said the whole time that they need to be patient. The issue, of course, is that Executive Vice President of Business Operations Jeanie Buss has repeatedly said if the team doesn't get back to "acceptable Lakers levels" of success, changes will be made.
The free agent pursuits are a bit of a misnomer. I'll admit that when I hear every year that they're trying to arrange a meeting with whatever the big free agent is that summer, be it Carmelo Anthony or LaMarcus Aldridge, I roll my eyes. Why are they chasing after these big fish when they need more of an organizational structure? But when you start to think about it, you realize that for the Lakers, it really is more of a top-down game-changer kind of impact they're looking for. Other teams, like Charlotte or Milwaukee, have to draft and develop a core and then look to add that kind of player.
The Lakers can look to say "We have Kobe and [big free agent]. Come win here." And that gets into a chicken and the egg scenario. Critics can claim they can't win enough to get those guys, and the Lakers would say if they get those guys they'll win enough to get more. So instead, they've split the difference.
You know it's bad when your ship is being called the Titanic:
"It's like [they think], 'We're not on the Titanic.' Yeah, you are," an executive said. "'No, we're not. It's all right. No, we're good.' No, you're not good. You're not good. It's sinking. People are in lifeboats. They're jumping off. You're not good."In other words, bouncing back is no longer a safe assumption."That's only in Hollywood," one executive said.
The only thing I would say to that is that this team has won 48 games the past two years while experiencing horrendous ratings on their new multi-billion dollar TV deal. The boat has sunk, ladies and gentlemen. Where we're at right now is the franchise hanging out on top of the door as Kobe says there's not room for both and that he'll be alright. We are past "the ship is sinking."
Here's the thing, though. In sports, you almost always rise back to the surface, eventually. It could take a while, but no one stays at the bottom of the ocean forever. The NBA, in particular, has mechanisms to avoid this with the lottery. That's what causes so much angst about the process, it rewards failure. The Lakers have Julius Randle, Jordan Clarkson and D'Angelo Russell. They already have a more talented core than several other teams. Whether they've sunk or in the midst of sinking is irrelevant, because the NBA is designed with inherent flotation devices.
Hey, not all the sources had bad things to say:
"They're one big deal from being in good position again," one executive said. "That's what it takes. And that's what they've been able to do in their history and I wouldn't count them out from being able to pull it off again."
Julius Randle might be that big. If not, they might be able to get that player in next year's draft. They'll have a chance to add to this core while improving. And that's a good sign.
The West-Coast Knicks?
"The Lakers are still the Lakers no matter what," one executive said, "but the Knicks have been saying that forever, too."
Said one agent: "Championship organizations start from the very top. I think the Lakers are hopeless, to be honest. I think they're the West Coast Knicks."
On the surface, you want to say "Whoa, let's not go so far as to call them the Knicks." But what have the Knicks done over the past decade? Ownership has constantly interfered in major situations, they've fought the reality of their need to rebuild while chasing big-name free agents, and it took wiping the slate and building under a new regime that was empowered to make changes to even get them headed in the right direction. So there are some similarities.
The Lakers, however, didn't fight rebuilding as hard as the Knicks did. They didn't slough off draft picks hoping for home runs on double pitches. They tried to be better, and when they weren't, they took their draft picks and have tried to build up.
The bigger picture here involves someone who the executives don't name, and it's a theme throughout the piece: Jim Buss does not garner much trust throughout the league. Buss has been a controversial figure who the team and its fans have rallied around to circle the wagons. Buss was the one who helped push Phil Jackson out the door, who opted to hire Mike Brown, and then fire him, and then hire Mike D'Antoni over giving Jackson the job back, according to several outlets. He's the one that's run the team. Mitch Kupchak has a decent amount of credit around the league, and for good reason having put together multiple title runs and several big trades. Buss, on the other hand, seems to be competing with the legacy of his father, and failing in the eyes of those around the league.
Do the Lakers need to clean house from top to bottom?
They talk about, 'You can't fire your players so you fire your coach.' Well, you can't fire your owner. That is the hardest thing. ... If [management] doesn't feel free to do their jobs, it is going to take a long time to rebuild."
One agent said if he were in charge, "I would clean house."
"The reality to me is that the Lakers aren't going to be better and are going to have a difficult time rebuilding with Jim Buss running the organization, and, to be quite frank, with Mitch Kupchak being in the front office," the agent said. "That's not because Mitch isn't intelligent or doesn't have experience or doesn't have rings; Mitch is still acting like they're winning championships every year or that players care about the Lakers [like they did] in years past."
There's a theme here, and it points straight to Jim Buss. Is that fair? Is Mitch Kupchak really beyond culpability? Maybe you can say Kupchak hasn't helped, but here's something to consider with both men: They built a team that should have rolled through the league on its way to multiple titles when they put together Dwight Howard, Steve Nash, Bryant and Pau Gasol. That that team self-destructed in the way it did should not be at the feet of Kupchak or Buss. That was a good idea that turned out to be a doomed situation from the start. It's hard to hold that against them, and really, the fallout from that situation has led to much of what's gone on now.
There's more in the piece, references to whether or not the Lakers "name" still matters, specifically. That, again, is a difficult proposition to argue. I've heard Lakers fans say to me "Yeah, but if we win a little bit, then we can use that name value to land a big free agent," to which I, of course, respond, "But in that situation it's that you won a little bit, not the name." It's, again, a chicken-and-the-egg situation. The only way to prove the name matters is to land a big free agent when they are not winning ... and they've failed to do that twice. However, the only way to prove the name doesn't matter is if they still can't land a free agent when they are winning. That doesn't seem likely given how the players still respond to the name "Lakers." Beating LA still matters. Being a part of that organization still matters. It just hasn't been enough to lure the specific free agents available.
There's also widespread criticism of two names involved: Byron Scott and Nick Young. For Scott, the criticism seems a bit excessive. Yes, he's a dinosaur in how he thinks of the game and needs to embrace concepts like the mathematical fact that three points is more than two. However, Scott did a great job in New Orleans of developing young talent, and despite his record, did the same in Cleveland with Kyrie Irving and Tristan Thompson. There are strong elements to his coaching approach, just as there are weaknesses.
As for Nick Young ... OK, yeah, that I agree with. There's no reason for that guy to be on the Lakers. None whatsoever, and the fact that they talked themselves into his nonsense is a strike against them.
And of course Shaq chimed in:
"They need to do the same thing Sacramento did -- get new players," said O'Neal, now a minority Kings owner. Pressed to be more specific on the Lakers, O'Neal said, "When you mean 'turn it around,' do you mean a championship? Because that's done. That's not happening unless they make a miraculous trade and get four new people. Who do they have on the Lakers? I'm not sure. I'm not joking. Do they even have anyone to trade that somebody would want?"
O'Neal is right about this being the situation the past two years, but it should be noted that they really have brought in new players. There's a core there, with value. Randle, Russell, Clarkson, Roy Hibbert, Brandon Bass and Lou Williams These are all actual NBA players. We could be looking at the Lakers differently in six months than we do now, even if they miss the playoffs in a brutal Western Conference.
If not, Jim Buss is going to want to get some ice to put on his backside because that seat is going to get hot in a hurry.
Now, about Kobe ...
