- 87,600
- 115,895
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
Good for Frank.
**LA LAKERS THREAD** Sitting on 17! 2023-2024 offseason begins
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by licensed to ball,
- Start date
- 7,007
- 9,694
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2012
Avery Bradley somewhere starting 2 a-days… 
- 22,286
- 16,107
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
Eh. Coaching doesnt matter
darthska
Staff member
- 44,462
- 28,071
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
If Vogel holds his clipboard at the right angle and wears the right color suit, PHX just might win it all next year.
darthska
Staff member
- 44,462
- 28,071
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
I can't remember the last Finals I missed, honestly. I can say that the most boring for me was Spurs/Nets or Spurs/Pistons, and the most painful was Lakers/Pistons or Lakers/Celtics, but I watched all the way through, every Finals, since... I think... Magic & Mike.
- 24,745
- 23,162
- Joined
- May 17, 2007
I’m a Frank fan. Good for him.
- 87,600
- 115,895
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
- 22,286
- 16,107
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
Handy not leaving lebrons last year in the league
- 87,600
- 115,895
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
- 38,284
- 38,826
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2013
frank getting paid like a true champion
- 87,600
- 115,895
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
Chances the Lakers pursue Kyrie Irving, No. 17 pick plans and the big question looming over it all
In Part 1 of our Lakers offseason mailbag, we touched on LeBron James’ retirement, free-agency targets, D’Angelo Russell’s future, Rui Hachimura’s potential contract and more.
Here is Part 2, discussing the Lakers’ biggest offseason question, the fate of the No. 17 pick, the odds Kyrie Irving is a Laker, which players are and aren’t likely to return and Max Christie’s sophomore season, among other topics.
Are the Lakers more interested in retaining everyone who played in the playoffs and adding someone like Myles Turner (2023 first-round pick, Bamba, Beasley)? Or gutting their team to go all in for a third star (like DeMar DeRozan, Zach LaVine, Kyrie Irving or Trae Young)? — @j_shainn
Aside from LeBron James’ future, this is the Lakers’ question of the summer: Do they pursue a third star, or run it back with the group that made the Western Conference finals?
It’s basically been the question for Los Angeles each offseason, dating back to the summer of 2019 when the Lakers traded for Anthony Davis and tried to land Kawhi Leonard in free agency in an attempt to form a big three of James, Leonard and Davis. It was the question again in 2020 when they traded Danny Green and the No. 28 pick to Oklahoma City for Dennis Schröder — a half-measure that was an attempt to solve their supplementary ballhandling conundrum. Most famously, it was the dilemma in 2021 that led to the misguided Russell Westbrook trade.
The tentative plan for the Lakers is to run it back with as much of this past season’s group as they can possibly afford under the new, stricter collective bargaining agreement. They will only pursue a third star if they deem that player of a certain caliber and believe he can fit next to James and Davis.
I think they run it back, or try to upgrade the point guard/lead ballhandler spot (Kyrie Irving, Fred VanVleet, Trae Young, etc.).
What’s the realistic percentage that Kyrie Irving is a Laker this summer? — @iKeepGrindin
This is a difficult question to answer, but if I had to peg a percentage, I’d go low — somewhere in the 10 to 15 percent range. It’s certainly possible, but there are so many factors that have to go in the Lakers’ favor for them to land Irving.
Ideally, they acquire him via sign-and-trade with Dallas. But that would require the Mavericks to play ball — and The Athletic’s Tim Cato reported Dallas is unlikely to do so. That also would hard-cap the Lakers, forcing them to make difficult decisions and likely resulting in them losing several key players from last season’s team (Schröder, Lonnie Walker IV and possibly Hachimura).
More realistically, Irving would have to take a substantial discount to sign with the Lakers in free agency, something he’s shown no willingness to do yet. To even make that a possibility, Los Angeles must willingly gut its depth to create cap space. In that scenario, the Lakers’ roster would probably be composed of James, Davis, Irving, Austin Reaves, a taxpayer mid-level exception signing and a bunch of minimum contracts.
Irving to Los Angeles remains a theoretical possibility until he signs a multiyear deal with Dallas or another team. (Even then, rumors of Irving to the Lakers could pop back up around the 2024 trade deadline if that partnership doesn’t work out.) But as I reported back in mid-March, all indications from the Lakers are that Irving to Los Angeles is nothing more than a pipe dream.
The Lakers already tried the three-star approach and failed. While Irving is a much better player than Westbrook and a much better fit next to James and Davis, Los Angeles once again would be risking its future by prioritizing star power over depth and continuity. Because of James’ affinity for Irving, and his potential leverage this offseason due to the uncertainty regarding his return, there’s a chance the Lakers cave and acquire Irving via trade or free agency. But there are several hurdles that make it unrealistic unless Irving is willing to get his hands dirty and force his way to Los Angeles.
How likely is signing (D’Angelo Russell) in the $22-$24 million range annually on a two-year contract? Is it a win-win for both sides heading into next season if it’s done as early as possible? — @yar07lav
Your proposal is a reasonable outcome for both sides, as it aligns Russell’s contract with the timetables of James (signed through 2024 with a player option for 2025) and Davis (signed through 2024 with an early termination option for 2025, though he becomes extension eligible in August).
That said, I think that’s a slight overpay for Russell considering his inconsistency in the playoffs and the current free-agent market. Where is the team that’s going to swoop in and compete with the Lakers’ offer? I think Los Angeles can squeeze Russell closer to the $18 million to $20 million range annually.
Every dollar is going to matter with the new CBA increasing the penalties for teams that exceed the luxury tax. The difference between Russell at $18 million and Russell at $25 million annually could be consequential. If Russell performed better in the postseason, this would be a different conversation. But on multiple nights, he was the Lakers’ fifth- or sixth-best player behind James, Davis, Reaves, Hachimura and sometimes even Schröder. It’s hard to justify paying him anything over $20 million annually.
Do you think that the Lakers should keep or trade the No. 17 pick? What do you think they’re leaning towards? — @dagger112233
Are the Lakers entertaining a trade involving the No. 17 pick? — @phat24
What do you think they do with the 17th pick? — @is_it_right
The most likely outcome is the Lakers keeping the No. 17 pick, according to multiple team sources not authorized to speak publicly. But that could change if the right trade becomes available — including a team making an enticing offer for the Lakers to trade back later in the draft. I think the right trade would involve using the pick to secure a starting-level upgrade available in a trade on draft night or later this offseason — like, say, Myles Turner in Indiana, who I discussed in Part 1 of this mailbag.
However, given the impressive track record of Lakers assistant general manager and co-owner Jesse Buss and the organization’s scouting department, the Lakers have a chance to hit at least a double at that stage of the draft. Whoever they draft could eventually be more valuable on the trade market than the average No. 17 pick.
Los Angeles will strike if there is an obvious and appealing offer, but they haven’t retained one of their own first-round picks since 2018 (Mo Wagner at No. 25) or had a top-17 pick since 2017. Their last non-lottery pick in the teens was Javaris Crittenton at No. 19 in 2007. This is a chance to find a player who can help both now and in the future.
Which players are least likely to be retained? — @jrsmithrange
It’s tough to say because there are so many different ways the Lakers’ offseason could play out.
I think James ($46.9 million), Davis ($40.6 million), Reaves (about $12.5 million if he signs for the Arenas Provision max), Hachimura ($15 to $18 million), Jarred Vanderbilt ($4.7 million) and Christie ($1.7 million) are likely on next season’s roster. Beyond that, it gets murky.
The two players it’s appearing won’t be back are Mo Bamba and Malik Beasley, if only because of their contracts. With the aforementioned six names expected to return, the Lakers would be at around $120 million to $125 million — depending on the salary of Hachimura — in salary before factoring in cap holds or empty roster charges. Add Bamba’s $10.3 million non-guaranteed salary and Beasley’s $16.5 million team option, and they’re pushing $150-plus million with just eight players — and that’s before including free agents like Russell, Schröder or Walker.
Russell is more likely than not to be back, but his return is not a lock. The Lakers are going to explore their options and upgrade if it makes sense.
Los Angeles would like to keep Schröder, but they have his non-Bird rights, meaning the most they can offer him in free agency is a projected $3.8 million in his first year unless they’re willing to use one of their midlevel exceptions (most likely the taxpayer midlevel exception, which is projected to be about $5 million annually for a maximum of three years).
I suspect Walker won’t be back because he can parlay his late-postseason success into a larger role elsewhere. With Reaves’ emergence, and the potential returns of Russell and Schröder, Walker is, at best, fourth in the backcourt pecking order. I think there will be suitors offering more guaranteed minutes and shots.
Troy Brown Jr., Wenyen Gabriel and Tristan Thompson all are veteran-minimum candidates who could be retained at a similar price should the Lakers choose to pursue them. Shaq Harrison will be waived (he has a $2.4 million non-guaranteed contract for next season).
Will Dennis Schröder come back? — @MulukenGuey
I think the Schröder situation is worth diving into in more detail.
The question for the Lakers is, essentially, what’s their greatest need this offseason?
Again, for them to realistically keep Schröder, they’d need to use one of their mid-level exceptions (either the non-taxpayer mid-level exception for up to a projected $12.2 million or the taxpayer mid-level exception for up to a projected $5.0 million). If they chose the former option, spending up to $12.2 million on Schröder, that would likely mean using him to replace Russell and saving meaningful salary on their cap sheet.
The downside to using an exception on Schröder is it costs the Lakers a valuable roster-building resource. They have additional needs, like another quality wing or a better backup center, and limited means to address them.
My guess would be they prefer another rotation-caliber wing — a player more reliable than Walker, Brown or Beasley. That was one of the weak spots in the rotation in the playoffs. Los Angeles isn’t oozing in wing talent the way more modernized teams like Boston, Denver, Golden State and the Clippers are. I expect the Lakers to try to address that with a trade and/or one of their exceptions.
Perhaps the Lakers, in an effort to run the group back as much as possible, strongly value Schröder’s performance in the 2023 playoffs and decide to bring him back. But they already have a solid foundation at point guard with James and the likely returns of Reaves and Russell (or his replacement). Schröder is probably expendable if it means addressing the team’s needs on the wing or the frontcourt.
How can the Lakers get more shooting on this team? The ability to score and avoid long droughts was the main difference between them and Denver. — @AvalloneCharlie
I think these are technically two different questions, though shooting is relevant in both instances.
The Lakers can get more shooting by signing or trading for it, as well as from internal improvement. I think Reaves, Hachimura, Vanderbilt, Russell and Christie all are young enough that they can shoot better and more consistently. Davis has been long overdue for positive regression with his jumper. James, too, after last season.
A top priority for the Lakers next season is 3-point shooting. With James and Davis as the stars, there always will be a limit to the volume of attempts they get up. The bread and butter of the offense will be James’ downhill attacks and Davis’ interior dominance, but a better cast of shooters would open up the paint even more and create better shots as a consequence.
As for the offense itself, I don’t think shooting is the only thing holding it back. That’s a big factor — arguably the biggest — but I think the Lakers’ stagnation, particularly down the stretch of games, was a significant issue. The Davis-less groups struggled to generate consistent offense when he was off the floor in the playoffs. James didn’t have his typical burst after returning from his foot injury. The Lakers’ offense did them in against Denver — and nearly cost them the Golden State series.
The Lakers need to implement more shooting with all three positional archetypes: bigs, wings and guards. They can’t afford to maintain the status quo offensively.
Is Darvin Ham gonna stop his three-guard lineups next season? — @DoingTheDada
It likely depends on how next season’s roster is constructed. For as much flak as Ham received from the fan base for his small lineups, the Lakers’ trio of Russell, Reaves and Schröder was quite effective together. The Lakers outscored opponents by 6.7 points per 100 possessions with those three on the floor together in the playoffs, according to Cleaning the Glass. They were even more dominant in the regular season, outscoring opponents by 46.2 points per 100 possessions over a small sample of 188 possessions, per Cleaning the Glass.
Looking at the playoffs, the true barometer, Los Angeles’ lineups with Walker as one of the three guards were also fairly successful. Replace Russell with Walker and the group is even better (plus-8.4 points per 100 possessions, per Cleaning the Glass). Walker in Reaves’ place was similarly useful (plus-3.0 points per 100 possessions).
Still, the Lakers’ three-guard configurations should be deployed only in certain matchups. They routinely suffered earlier in the season, even in the playoffs at times, because of mismatches after switches and larger opponents crashing the offensive glass against their guards.
The front office needs to be intentional about how they build the roster, giving Ham fewer small-guard options. Ham, in learning from last season, also can realize the self-imposed limitations of those lineups and adjust, as well.
How big of a second-year jump do you expect Max Christie to take next season? — @eyyjack
I expect Christie to take a considerable jump in his sophomore season. I think he should’ve been given a look, if only briefly, in the playoffs. He appeared to be a rotation-caliber player in January when he was the team’s eighth man for a few weeks. Over that stretch from Jan. 6 through Jan. 25, Christie averaged only 5.3 points and 2.3 rebounds but shot 52.5 percent overall and 47.6 percent on 3s.
His defense stood out all the way back to Las Vegas Summer League. He uses his hands well, he’s almost always in a proper stance, and he has a high basketball IQ from both a team and individual perspective. His rebounding is impressive for someone his size and frame. The one glaring weakness in his game was his strength, but Christie has gradually worked on his body throughout the season.
Christie, like Reaves in his rookie season, needs to play with greater confidence and assertiveness offensively. He needs to shoot when open. There were times he was clearly second-guessing himself or making the extra pass when he should’ve taken a shot.
There’s a chance that Christie works his way into the Lakers’ rotation permanently next season, potentially as the team’s eighth or ninth man, depending on the roster makeup. If he can knock down 3s at an above-league-average rate and continue to bulk up to better handle wings defensively, he’ll have an important role on next season’s team.
In Part 1 of our Lakers offseason mailbag, we touched on LeBron James’ retirement, free-agency targets, D’Angelo Russell’s future, Rui Hachimura’s potential contract and more.
Here is Part 2, discussing the Lakers’ biggest offseason question, the fate of the No. 17 pick, the odds Kyrie Irving is a Laker, which players are and aren’t likely to return and Max Christie’s sophomore season, among other topics.
Are the Lakers more interested in retaining everyone who played in the playoffs and adding someone like Myles Turner (2023 first-round pick, Bamba, Beasley)? Or gutting their team to go all in for a third star (like DeMar DeRozan, Zach LaVine, Kyrie Irving or Trae Young)? — @j_shainn
Aside from LeBron James’ future, this is the Lakers’ question of the summer: Do they pursue a third star, or run it back with the group that made the Western Conference finals?
It’s basically been the question for Los Angeles each offseason, dating back to the summer of 2019 when the Lakers traded for Anthony Davis and tried to land Kawhi Leonard in free agency in an attempt to form a big three of James, Leonard and Davis. It was the question again in 2020 when they traded Danny Green and the No. 28 pick to Oklahoma City for Dennis Schröder — a half-measure that was an attempt to solve their supplementary ballhandling conundrum. Most famously, it was the dilemma in 2021 that led to the misguided Russell Westbrook trade.
The tentative plan for the Lakers is to run it back with as much of this past season’s group as they can possibly afford under the new, stricter collective bargaining agreement. They will only pursue a third star if they deem that player of a certain caliber and believe he can fit next to James and Davis.
I think they run it back, or try to upgrade the point guard/lead ballhandler spot (Kyrie Irving, Fred VanVleet, Trae Young, etc.).
What’s the realistic percentage that Kyrie Irving is a Laker this summer? — @iKeepGrindin
This is a difficult question to answer, but if I had to peg a percentage, I’d go low — somewhere in the 10 to 15 percent range. It’s certainly possible, but there are so many factors that have to go in the Lakers’ favor for them to land Irving.
Ideally, they acquire him via sign-and-trade with Dallas. But that would require the Mavericks to play ball — and The Athletic’s Tim Cato reported Dallas is unlikely to do so. That also would hard-cap the Lakers, forcing them to make difficult decisions and likely resulting in them losing several key players from last season’s team (Schröder, Lonnie Walker IV and possibly Hachimura).
More realistically, Irving would have to take a substantial discount to sign with the Lakers in free agency, something he’s shown no willingness to do yet. To even make that a possibility, Los Angeles must willingly gut its depth to create cap space. In that scenario, the Lakers’ roster would probably be composed of James, Davis, Irving, Austin Reaves, a taxpayer mid-level exception signing and a bunch of minimum contracts.
Irving to Los Angeles remains a theoretical possibility until he signs a multiyear deal with Dallas or another team. (Even then, rumors of Irving to the Lakers could pop back up around the 2024 trade deadline if that partnership doesn’t work out.) But as I reported back in mid-March, all indications from the Lakers are that Irving to Los Angeles is nothing more than a pipe dream.
The Lakers already tried the three-star approach and failed. While Irving is a much better player than Westbrook and a much better fit next to James and Davis, Los Angeles once again would be risking its future by prioritizing star power over depth and continuity. Because of James’ affinity for Irving, and his potential leverage this offseason due to the uncertainty regarding his return, there’s a chance the Lakers cave and acquire Irving via trade or free agency. But there are several hurdles that make it unrealistic unless Irving is willing to get his hands dirty and force his way to Los Angeles.
How likely is signing (D’Angelo Russell) in the $22-$24 million range annually on a two-year contract? Is it a win-win for both sides heading into next season if it’s done as early as possible? — @yar07lav
Your proposal is a reasonable outcome for both sides, as it aligns Russell’s contract with the timetables of James (signed through 2024 with a player option for 2025) and Davis (signed through 2024 with an early termination option for 2025, though he becomes extension eligible in August).
That said, I think that’s a slight overpay for Russell considering his inconsistency in the playoffs and the current free-agent market. Where is the team that’s going to swoop in and compete with the Lakers’ offer? I think Los Angeles can squeeze Russell closer to the $18 million to $20 million range annually.
Every dollar is going to matter with the new CBA increasing the penalties for teams that exceed the luxury tax. The difference between Russell at $18 million and Russell at $25 million annually could be consequential. If Russell performed better in the postseason, this would be a different conversation. But on multiple nights, he was the Lakers’ fifth- or sixth-best player behind James, Davis, Reaves, Hachimura and sometimes even Schröder. It’s hard to justify paying him anything over $20 million annually.
Do you think that the Lakers should keep or trade the No. 17 pick? What do you think they’re leaning towards? — @dagger112233
Are the Lakers entertaining a trade involving the No. 17 pick? — @phat24
What do you think they do with the 17th pick? — @is_it_right
The most likely outcome is the Lakers keeping the No. 17 pick, according to multiple team sources not authorized to speak publicly. But that could change if the right trade becomes available — including a team making an enticing offer for the Lakers to trade back later in the draft. I think the right trade would involve using the pick to secure a starting-level upgrade available in a trade on draft night or later this offseason — like, say, Myles Turner in Indiana, who I discussed in Part 1 of this mailbag.
However, given the impressive track record of Lakers assistant general manager and co-owner Jesse Buss and the organization’s scouting department, the Lakers have a chance to hit at least a double at that stage of the draft. Whoever they draft could eventually be more valuable on the trade market than the average No. 17 pick.
Los Angeles will strike if there is an obvious and appealing offer, but they haven’t retained one of their own first-round picks since 2018 (Mo Wagner at No. 25) or had a top-17 pick since 2017. Their last non-lottery pick in the teens was Javaris Crittenton at No. 19 in 2007. This is a chance to find a player who can help both now and in the future.
Which players are least likely to be retained? — @jrsmithrange
It’s tough to say because there are so many different ways the Lakers’ offseason could play out.
I think James ($46.9 million), Davis ($40.6 million), Reaves (about $12.5 million if he signs for the Arenas Provision max), Hachimura ($15 to $18 million), Jarred Vanderbilt ($4.7 million) and Christie ($1.7 million) are likely on next season’s roster. Beyond that, it gets murky.
The two players it’s appearing won’t be back are Mo Bamba and Malik Beasley, if only because of their contracts. With the aforementioned six names expected to return, the Lakers would be at around $120 million to $125 million — depending on the salary of Hachimura — in salary before factoring in cap holds or empty roster charges. Add Bamba’s $10.3 million non-guaranteed salary and Beasley’s $16.5 million team option, and they’re pushing $150-plus million with just eight players — and that’s before including free agents like Russell, Schröder or Walker.
Russell is more likely than not to be back, but his return is not a lock. The Lakers are going to explore their options and upgrade if it makes sense.
Los Angeles would like to keep Schröder, but they have his non-Bird rights, meaning the most they can offer him in free agency is a projected $3.8 million in his first year unless they’re willing to use one of their midlevel exceptions (most likely the taxpayer midlevel exception, which is projected to be about $5 million annually for a maximum of three years).
I suspect Walker won’t be back because he can parlay his late-postseason success into a larger role elsewhere. With Reaves’ emergence, and the potential returns of Russell and Schröder, Walker is, at best, fourth in the backcourt pecking order. I think there will be suitors offering more guaranteed minutes and shots.
Troy Brown Jr., Wenyen Gabriel and Tristan Thompson all are veteran-minimum candidates who could be retained at a similar price should the Lakers choose to pursue them. Shaq Harrison will be waived (he has a $2.4 million non-guaranteed contract for next season).
Will Dennis Schröder come back? — @MulukenGuey
I think the Schröder situation is worth diving into in more detail.
The question for the Lakers is, essentially, what’s their greatest need this offseason?
Again, for them to realistically keep Schröder, they’d need to use one of their mid-level exceptions (either the non-taxpayer mid-level exception for up to a projected $12.2 million or the taxpayer mid-level exception for up to a projected $5.0 million). If they chose the former option, spending up to $12.2 million on Schröder, that would likely mean using him to replace Russell and saving meaningful salary on their cap sheet.
The downside to using an exception on Schröder is it costs the Lakers a valuable roster-building resource. They have additional needs, like another quality wing or a better backup center, and limited means to address them.
My guess would be they prefer another rotation-caliber wing — a player more reliable than Walker, Brown or Beasley. That was one of the weak spots in the rotation in the playoffs. Los Angeles isn’t oozing in wing talent the way more modernized teams like Boston, Denver, Golden State and the Clippers are. I expect the Lakers to try to address that with a trade and/or one of their exceptions.
Perhaps the Lakers, in an effort to run the group back as much as possible, strongly value Schröder’s performance in the 2023 playoffs and decide to bring him back. But they already have a solid foundation at point guard with James and the likely returns of Reaves and Russell (or his replacement). Schröder is probably expendable if it means addressing the team’s needs on the wing or the frontcourt.
How can the Lakers get more shooting on this team? The ability to score and avoid long droughts was the main difference between them and Denver. — @AvalloneCharlie
I think these are technically two different questions, though shooting is relevant in both instances.
The Lakers can get more shooting by signing or trading for it, as well as from internal improvement. I think Reaves, Hachimura, Vanderbilt, Russell and Christie all are young enough that they can shoot better and more consistently. Davis has been long overdue for positive regression with his jumper. James, too, after last season.
A top priority for the Lakers next season is 3-point shooting. With James and Davis as the stars, there always will be a limit to the volume of attempts they get up. The bread and butter of the offense will be James’ downhill attacks and Davis’ interior dominance, but a better cast of shooters would open up the paint even more and create better shots as a consequence.
As for the offense itself, I don’t think shooting is the only thing holding it back. That’s a big factor — arguably the biggest — but I think the Lakers’ stagnation, particularly down the stretch of games, was a significant issue. The Davis-less groups struggled to generate consistent offense when he was off the floor in the playoffs. James didn’t have his typical burst after returning from his foot injury. The Lakers’ offense did them in against Denver — and nearly cost them the Golden State series.
The Lakers need to implement more shooting with all three positional archetypes: bigs, wings and guards. They can’t afford to maintain the status quo offensively.
Is Darvin Ham gonna stop his three-guard lineups next season? — @DoingTheDada
It likely depends on how next season’s roster is constructed. For as much flak as Ham received from the fan base for his small lineups, the Lakers’ trio of Russell, Reaves and Schröder was quite effective together. The Lakers outscored opponents by 6.7 points per 100 possessions with those three on the floor together in the playoffs, according to Cleaning the Glass. They were even more dominant in the regular season, outscoring opponents by 46.2 points per 100 possessions over a small sample of 188 possessions, per Cleaning the Glass.
Looking at the playoffs, the true barometer, Los Angeles’ lineups with Walker as one of the three guards were also fairly successful. Replace Russell with Walker and the group is even better (plus-8.4 points per 100 possessions, per Cleaning the Glass). Walker in Reaves’ place was similarly useful (plus-3.0 points per 100 possessions).
Still, the Lakers’ three-guard configurations should be deployed only in certain matchups. They routinely suffered earlier in the season, even in the playoffs at times, because of mismatches after switches and larger opponents crashing the offensive glass against their guards.
The front office needs to be intentional about how they build the roster, giving Ham fewer small-guard options. Ham, in learning from last season, also can realize the self-imposed limitations of those lineups and adjust, as well.
How big of a second-year jump do you expect Max Christie to take next season? — @eyyjack
I expect Christie to take a considerable jump in his sophomore season. I think he should’ve been given a look, if only briefly, in the playoffs. He appeared to be a rotation-caliber player in January when he was the team’s eighth man for a few weeks. Over that stretch from Jan. 6 through Jan. 25, Christie averaged only 5.3 points and 2.3 rebounds but shot 52.5 percent overall and 47.6 percent on 3s.
His defense stood out all the way back to Las Vegas Summer League. He uses his hands well, he’s almost always in a proper stance, and he has a high basketball IQ from both a team and individual perspective. His rebounding is impressive for someone his size and frame. The one glaring weakness in his game was his strength, but Christie has gradually worked on his body throughout the season.
Christie, like Reaves in his rookie season, needs to play with greater confidence and assertiveness offensively. He needs to shoot when open. There were times he was clearly second-guessing himself or making the extra pass when he should’ve taken a shot.
There’s a chance that Christie works his way into the Lakers’ rotation permanently next season, potentially as the team’s eighth or ninth man, depending on the roster makeup. If he can knock down 3s at an above-league-average rate and continue to bulk up to better handle wings defensively, he’ll have an important role on next season’s team.
- 22,895
- 26,766
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2010
Lakers better not let Handy go over there.
- 22,286
- 16,107
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
Buha is such a hack.
- 22,286
- 16,107
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
- 7,007
- 9,694
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2012
Not sure if you saw Monty’s deal but Phx kinda got Vogel for the low
- 17,170
- 24,004
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
Last edited:
- 3,207
- 2,737
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
Chris Paul could end up in Detroit. or... Lakers?
dontsteponmyshoes
Supporter
- 12,187
- 13,959
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
Couldn't get the proper lift with that ankle bracelet on
- 23,561
- 30,409
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2017
Send his azzz to Detroit
- 17,170
- 24,004
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
LeBron has played for four of these coaches in the league
- 38,284
- 38,826
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2013
Vogel not making it past 3 years
That’s 10 mil per year
And he gets to not live in Detroit
- 8,096
- 18,624
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2016
wrong thread
Last edited:
- 87,600
- 115,895
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
New Lakers beat reporter. Replaces Kyle Goon, who moved to Baltimore.
- 15,603
- 16,573
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2019
Throw Toronto on that list. What have I been saying since the dawn of man and since I joined NT in 2019
However, the "championship formula" is rocket science. They think 3-point chucking guards run the league LOL
Last edited:
- 15,603
- 16,573
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2019
Ishbia hired Vogel cause they're both 5'9"
