Pittstop said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Bronny had a heart attack at the beginning of last season. We don't really know how good he is. He certainly can be a role player in the NBA.

---

Yeah, if his dad gets him a spot. He's a 6'2 shooting guard who can't shoot or create. Maybe he could turn into something someday, but there are ton of college players at or above his level now that you can say that about.

---

He actually measured 6'1" at the NBA combine.

---

Measured at 6'1 and 1/2" in his bare feet.

6'7 and 1/4" wingspan

8'2 and 1/2" standing reach

concernedparent said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Bronny had a heart attack at the beginning of last season. We don't really know how good he is. He certainly can be a role player in the NBA.

---

Yeah, if his dad gets him a spot. He's a 6'2 shooting guard who can't shoot or create. Maybe he could turn into something someday, but there are ton of college players at or above his level now that you can say that about.

---

Bronny shot 19-for-25 in the 3-point shooting drill, which ranked second overall, amongst all attendees.

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

In Magic's defense, Paul Westhead wanted the Lakers to slow down and play a half-court game. However, the Lakers offense was at its best on the fastbreak where Magic's passing abilities were optimized. Magic, and most of the players, recognized that and wanted to run the fast break offense more, but Westhead was dead set against it. Magic, as a team leader (though not the main leader, who was Kareem at the time) complained about Westhead's offense and requested a trade. Dr. Jerry Buss agreed that the Lakers were better in the fast break so he fired Paul Westhead and hired Pat Riley to be the head coach. This really helped usher in the Lakers Showtime era and four more championships in the 1980s.

In short, Magic's complaints were justified and the Lakers Showtime dynasty really proved him right. Magic wanted the Lakers to win more championships and knew their best chance to do so was to rely more on a fastbreak offense. The Lakers benefited by siding with Magic and firing Paul Westhead.

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

In Magic's defense, Paul Westhead wanted the Lakers to slow down and play a half-court game. However, the Lakers offense was at its best on the fastbreak where Magic's passing abilities were optimized. Magic, and most of the players, recognized that and wanted to run the fast break offense more, but Westhead was dead set against it. Magic, as a team leader (though not the main leader, who was Kareem at the time) complained about Westhead's offense and requested a trade. Dr. Jerry Buss agreed that the Lakers were better in the fast break so he fired Paul Westhead and hired Pat Riley to be the head coach. This really helped usher in the Lakers Showtime era and four more championships in the 1980s.

In short, Magic's complaints were justified and the Lakers Showtime dynasty really proved him right. Magic wanted the Lakers to win more championships and knew their best chance to do so was to rely more on a fastbreak offense. The Lakers benefited by siding with Magic and firing Paul Westhead.

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

What is crazy about that is Westhead, from his days at Loyola Marymount, is known as the MOST fastbreak oriented coach of all-time.

---

Yup, but that was only after he saw how well it worked for the Showtime Lakers. Kudos to him since it demonstrated that he was open to learning and changing.

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

In Magic's defense, Paul Westhead wanted the Lakers to slow down and play a half-court game. However, the Lakers offense was at its best on the fastbreak where Magic's passing abilities were optimized. Magic, and most of the players, recognized that and wanted to run the fast break offense more, but Westhead was dead set against it. Magic, as a team leader (though not the main leader, who was Kareem at the time) complained about Westhead's offense and requested a trade. Dr. Jerry Buss agreed that the Lakers were better in the fast break so he fired Paul Westhead and hired Pat Riley to be the head coach. This really helped usher in the Lakers Showtime era and four more championships in the 1980s.

In short, Magic's complaints were justified and the Lakers Showtime dynasty really proved him right. Magic wanted the Lakers to win more championships and knew their best chance to do so was to rely more on a fastbreak offense. The Lakers benefited by siding with Magic and firing Paul Westhead.

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

What is crazy about that is Westhead, from his days at Loyola Marymount, is known as the MOST fastbreak oriented coach of all-time.

---

Yup, but that was only after he saw how well it worked for the Showtime Lakers. Kudos to him since it demonstrated that he was open to learning and changing.

---

Loyola Marymount wasn't a destination school for basketball players when Westhead went there, was it? I'll bet he thought this could be a key recruiting advantage, since that style appeals to most players.

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason). LeBron is no longer able to carry a team to a championship as its best player. If he were to go to another team to win another ring, it wouldn't really boost his legacy since he'd be pulling a KD (to the Warriors) and going to an already established team instead of leading his team to a championship.

Fir LeBron apologists, though. he doesn't need to win another ring. They consider that his being the NBA total points leader, his four rings, and his longevity (with sustained excellence) are sufficient to crown him GOAT. IMHO, however, he's not the GOAT because he doesn't have enough rings. Not just Jordan (let alone Bill Russell), but Magic and Kobe both have more than he (and both definitely cared about winning much more than LeBron does).

LeBron may be the best player of the current NBA, but he's not the GOAT. I think he understands that. (He may not agree with it, but rings matter.) At the end of the day, though, he really only cares about himself. That's why he could never be the GOAT; the great ones made the guys around them better, not worse.

That said, I agree that LeBron is unlikely to go to a(nother) subpar team just to play with Bronny. Rather, I suspect LeBron will remain with the Lakers and force them to waste a pick on Bronny. He'll be able to live out his dream will being able to oversee his (business) interests in LA. (In case it's not clear, LeBron's with the Lakers because he wants to be in LA to oversee his business interests.)

HearstMining said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

In Magic's defense, Paul Westhead wanted the Lakers to slow down and play a half-court game. However, the Lakers offense was at its best on the fastbreak where Magic's passing abilities were optimized. Magic, and most of the players, recognized that and wanted to run the fast break offense more, but Westhead was dead set against it. Magic, as a team leader (though not the main leader, who was Kareem at the time) complained about Westhead's offense and requested a trade. Dr. Jerry Buss agreed that the Lakers were better in the fast break so he fired Paul Westhead and hired Pat Riley to be the head coach. This really helped usher in the Lakers Showtime era and four more championships in the 1980s.

In short, Magic's complaints were justified and the Lakers Showtime dynasty really proved him right. Magic wanted the Lakers to win more championships and knew their best chance to do so was to rely more on a fastbreak offense. The Lakers benefited by siding with Magic and firing Paul Westhead.

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

What is crazy about that is Westhead, from his days at Loyola Marymount, is known as the MOST fastbreak oriented coach of all-time.

---

Yup, but that was only after he saw how well it worked for the Showtime Lakers. Kudos to him since it demonstrated that he was open to learning and changing.

---

Loyola Marymount wasn't a destination school for basketball players when Westhead went there, was it? I'll bet he thought this could be a key recruiting advantage, since that style appeals to most players.

---

Agreed. That LMU team was fun to watch. It probably made recruiting a little easier since lots of good players like to play in that kind of fast-paced offense.

But then Hank Gathers died. His death really sent a shockwave through LA (and I would imagine throughout all of college basketball). (I was just a kid at the time, but I remember hearing about it; it wasn't until I was a little older that I finally understood how he died.) LMU never really recovered after that.

01Bear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

In Magic's defense, Paul Westhead wanted the Lakers to slow down and play a half-court game. However, the Lakers offense was at its best on the fastbreak where Magic's passing abilities were optimized. Magic, and most of the players, recognized that and wanted to run the fast break offense more, but Westhead was dead set against it. Magic, as a team leader (though not the main leader, who was Kareem at the time) complained about Westhead's offense and requested a trade. Dr. Jerry Buss agreed that the Lakers were better in the fast break so he fired Paul Westhead and hired Pat Riley to be the head coach. This really helped usher in the Lakers Showtime era and four more championships in the 1980s.

In short, Magic's complaints were justified and the Lakers Showtime dynasty really proved him right. Magic wanted the Lakers to win more championships and knew their best chance to do so was to rely more on a fastbreak offense. The Lakers benefited by siding with Magic and firing Paul Westhead.

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

What is crazy about that is Westhead, from his days at Loyola Marymount, is known as the MOST fastbreak oriented coach of all-time.

---

Yup, but that was only after he saw how well it worked for the Showtime Lakers. Kudos to him since it demonstrated that he was open to learning and changing.

---

Loyola Marymount wasn't a destination school for basketball players when Westhead went there, was it? I'll bet he thought this could be a key recruiting advantage, since that style appeals to most players.

---

Agreed. That LMU team was fun to watch. It probably made recruiting a little easier since lots of good players like to play in that kind of fast-paced offense.

But then Hank Gathers died. His death really sent a shockwave through LA (and I would imagine throughout all of college basketball). (I was just a kid at the time, but I remember hearing about it; it wasn't until I was a little older that I finally understood how he died.) LMU never really recovered after that.

---

Interesting. My knowledge of the Laker Dynasty years is limited to the series Winning Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty. In the show, they depicted Westhead having the Lakers put up the first available shot.
[url=https://www.max.com/shows/winning-time-the-rise-of-the-lakers-dynasty/0b56e11a-a2ce-4225-9f05-2579b252dddb][/url]

Civil Bear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

In Magic's defense, Paul Westhead wanted the Lakers to slow down and play a half-court game. However, the Lakers offense was at its best on the fastbreak where Magic's passing abilities were optimized. Magic, and most of the players, recognized that and wanted to run the fast break offense more, but Westhead was dead set against it. Magic, as a team leader (though not the main leader, who was Kareem at the time) complained about Westhead's offense and requested a trade. Dr. Jerry Buss agreed that the Lakers were better in the fast break so he fired Paul Westhead and hired Pat Riley to be the head coach. This really helped usher in the Lakers Showtime era and four more championships in the 1980s.

In short, Magic's complaints were justified and the Lakers Showtime dynasty really proved him right. Magic wanted the Lakers to win more championships and knew their best chance to do so was to rely more on a fastbreak offense. The Lakers benefited by siding with Magic and firing Paul Westhead.

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

What is crazy about that is Westhead, from his days at Loyola Marymount, is known as the MOST fastbreak oriented coach of all-time.

---

Yup, but that was only after he saw how well it worked for the Showtime Lakers. Kudos to him since it demonstrated that he was open to learning and changing.

---

Loyola Marymount wasn't a destination school for basketball players when Westhead went there, was it? I'll bet he thought this could be a key recruiting advantage, since that style appeals to most players.

---

Agreed. That LMU team was fun to watch. It probably made recruiting a little easier since lots of good players like to play in that kind of fast-paced offense.

But then Hank Gathers died. His death really sent a shockwave through LA (and I would imagine throughout all of college basketball). (I was just a kid at the time, but I remember hearing about it; it wasn't until I was a little older that I finally understood how he died.) LMU never really recovered after that.

---

Interesting. My knowledge of the Laker Dynasty years is limited to the series Winning Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty. In the show, they depicted Westhead having the Lakers put up the first available shot.
[url=https://www.max.com/shows/winning-time-the-rise-of-the-lakers-dynasty/0b56e11a-a2ce-4225-9f05-2579b252dddb][/url]

---

It was more Westhead's Old School authoritarian coaching style. Buss wasn't happy with the offense, but at the core it was that Westhead wouldn't listen to player input and was disrespectful. They won a Championship with Westhead in 1980, but Showtime Lakers became a dynasty with Pat Riley as the consummate player friendly coach.

From Wikipedia:

On November 18, 1981, at halftime while on the road at Utah, Magic Johnson and coach Paul Westhead had a verbal altercation in the locker room. It was stated by teammate Kareem Abdul-Jabbar that Johnson had offered input on the game, which resulted in Westhead twice telling him to "Shut up." Johnson then told reporters after this game that he would like to be traded anywhere,[2] resulting in a barrage of media coverage. One day after these events, Lakers owner Jerry Buss held a press conference at The Forum, where he announced the firing of Westhead, with his replacement being Pat Riley as "coach" and general manager Jerry West as "offensive coach". West came to the podium and clarified to media that Riley was indeed the head coach and that West himself would simply provide him support on the bench, which lasted for a period of 12 games. Although Johnson denied responsibility for Westhead's firing,[3] he was booed across the league, even by Lakers' fans.[4] However, Buss was also unhappy with the Lakers offense and had intended on firing Westhead days before the WestheadJohnson altercation, but assistant GM West and GM Bill Sharman had convinced Buss to delay his decision.[5]

Civil Bear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

In Magic's defense, Paul Westhead wanted the Lakers to slow down and play a half-court game. However, the Lakers offense was at its best on the fastbreak where Magic's passing abilities were optimized. Magic, and most of the players, recognized that and wanted to run the fast break offense more, but Westhead was dead set against it. Magic, as a team leader (though not the main leader, who was Kareem at the time) complained about Westhead's offense and requested a trade. Dr. Jerry Buss agreed that the Lakers were better in the fast break so he fired Paul Westhead and hired Pat Riley to be the head coach. This really helped usher in the Lakers Showtime era and four more championships in the 1980s.

In short, Magic's complaints were justified and the Lakers Showtime dynasty really proved him right. Magic wanted the Lakers to win more championships and knew their best chance to do so was to rely more on a fastbreak offense. The Lakers benefited by siding with Magic and firing Paul Westhead.

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

What is crazy about that is Westhead, from his days at Loyola Marymount, is known as the MOST fastbreak oriented coach of all-time.

---

Yup, but that was only after he saw how well it worked for the Showtime Lakers. Kudos to him since it demonstrated that he was open to learning and changing.

---

Loyola Marymount wasn't a destination school for basketball players when Westhead went there, was it? I'll bet he thought this could be a key recruiting advantage, since that style appeals to most players.

---

Agreed. That LMU team was fun to watch. It probably made recruiting a little easier since lots of good players like to play in that kind of fast-paced offense.

But then Hank Gathers died. His death really sent a shockwave through LA (and I would imagine throughout all of college basketball). (I was just a kid at the time, but I remember hearing about it; it wasn't until I was a little older that I finally understood how he died.) LMU never really recovered after that.

---

Interesting. My knowledge of the Laker Dynasty years is limited to the series Winning Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty. In the show, they depicted Westhead having the Lakers put up the first available shot.
[url=https://www.max.com/shows/winning-time-the-rise-of-the-lakers-dynasty/0b56e11a-a2ce-4225-9f05-2579b252dddb][/url]

---

It's been a while (and I may be misremembering), but I believe Jackie MacMullan mentions it briefly in her book. When the Game Was Ours. From what I remember, Westhead wanted to run more of a half-court offense and didn't like Magic's fastbreak offense all that much.

ETA: See also, https://steemit.com/steemsports/@steemsports/paul-westhead-s-system-a-precursor-to-today-s-nba-offense.

"Back then Paul Westhead ran a more deliberate, half-court offensive scheme that Magic grew tired of. Years later, he threw away his half-court sensibilities and embraced an exhilarating, run and gun offense that he dubbed "The System" which emphasized a quick pace and fast-breaks. It's similar to what the Lakers adopted with Pat Riley's "Showtime" squad after Westhead was ousted."

2nd ETA: See also, https://www.csmonitor.com/1981/1123/112332.html.
"Asked why the Lakers had so much trouble winning by big margins this year under Westhead, Riley replied:

''For one thing the players hadn't adjusted to Paul's offense yet. We just weren't very consistent, and too much of our offense was of the half-court variety."

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

In Magic's defense, Paul Westhead wanted the Lakers to slow down and play a half-court game. However, the Lakers offense was at its best on the fastbreak where Magic's passing abilities were optimized. Magic, and most of the players, recognized that and wanted to run the fast break offense more, but Westhead was dead set against it. Magic, as a team leader (though not the main leader, who was Kareem at the time) complained about Westhead's offense and requested a trade. Dr. Jerry Buss agreed that the Lakers were better in the fast break so he fired Paul Westhead and hired Pat Riley to be the head coach. This really helped usher in the Lakers Showtime era and four more championships in the 1980s.

In short, Magic's complaints were justified and the Lakers Showtime dynasty really proved him right. Magic wanted the Lakers to win more championships and knew their best chance to do so was to rely more on a fastbreak offense. The Lakers benefited by siding with Magic and firing Paul Westhead.

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

What is crazy about that is Westhead, from his days at Loyola Marymount, is known as the MOST fastbreak oriented coach of all-time.

---

Yup, but that was only after he saw how well it worked for the Showtime Lakers. Kudos to him since it demonstrated that he was open to learning and changing.

---

Loyola Marymount wasn't a destination school for basketball players when Westhead went there, was it? I'll bet he thought this could be a key recruiting advantage, since that style appeals to most players.

---

Agreed. That LMU team was fun to watch. It probably made recruiting a little easier since lots of good players like to play in that kind of fast-paced offense.

But then Hank Gathers died. His death really sent a shockwave through LA (and I would imagine throughout all of college basketball). (I was just a kid at the time, but I remember hearing about it; it wasn't until I was a little older that I finally understood how he died.) LMU never really recovered after that.

---

Interesting. My knowledge of the Laker Dynasty years is limited to the series Winning Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty. In the show, they depicted Westhead having the Lakers put up the first available shot.
[url=https://www.max.com/shows/winning-time-the-rise-of-the-lakers-dynasty/0b56e11a-a2ce-4225-9f05-2579b252dddb][/url]

---

It's been a while (and I may be misremembering), but I believe Jackie MacMullan mentions it briefly in her book. When the Game Was Ours. From what I remember, Westhead wanted to run more of a half-court offense and didn't like Magic's fastbreak offense all that much.

ETA: See also, https://steemit.com/steemsports/@steemsports/paul-westhead-s-system-a-precursor-to-today-s-nba-offense.

"Back then Paul Westhead ran a more deliberate, half-court offensive scheme that Magic grew tired of. Years later, he threw away his half-court sensibilities and embraced an exhilarating, run and gun offense that he dubbed "The System" which emphasized a quick pace and fast-breaks. It's similar to what the Lakers adopted with Pat Riley's "Showtime" squad after Westhead was ousted."

2nd ETA: See also, https://www.csmonitor.com/1981/1123/112332.html.
"Asked why the Lakers had so much trouble winning by big margins this year under Westhead, Riley replied:

''For one thing the players hadn't adjusted to Paul's offense yet. We just weren't very consistent, and too much of our offense was of the half-court variety."

---

My memory of that offense (I was a Laker season ticket holder in '85, '86 and '87) is it was two options: 1) fast break and 2) if the break isn't there, wait for Kareem to get down the court then dump it to him for a sky hook.

---

For the most part, that's pretty much how I remember it, too. Of course, there were also plays where Magic drove the lane and either kicked the ball out to a perimeter shooter or dropped it off to another interior player in the paint to get the easy bucket. Either way, it was a thing of beauty, though.

Of course, this was under Pat Riley's coaching, not Paul Westhead's.

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason).

---

What?

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason).

---

What?

---

The Lakers were barely above .500 this year and also last year. LeBron and Anthony Davis's contracts take up too much of the Lakers cap space. But LeBron's not dedicated to winning another championship (only chasing individual accomplishments) and AD is just too injury prone (and also too passive). Neither one is willing to play the heavy and whip their teammates into the best versions of themselves on the hardwood. LeBron is too focused on himself and AD's just not a leader.

AD and LeBron's contracts leave the lakers with about 30% of their cap space to sign ten to thirteen players. The better 3-and-D guys will want too much money, so the lakers are left with guys who are either aging and ring chasing or guys who can only play either good defense with poor offense or good offense with poor defense. Still, the Lakers have gone over the salary cap, meaning they have limited means (e.g., the midlevel exception) to sign additional role players who end up being past their prime or average (at best).

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason).

---

What?

---

The Lakers were barely above .500 this year and also last year. LeBron and Anthony Davis's contracts take up too much of the Lakers cap space. But LeBron's not dedicated to winning another championship (only chasing individual accomplishments) and AD is just too injury prone (and also too passive). Neither one is willing to play the heavy and whip their teammates into the best versions of themselves on the hardwood. LeBron is too focused on himself and AD's just not a leader.

AD and LeBron's contracts leave the lakers with about 30% of their cap space to sign ten to thirteen players. The better 3-and-D guys will want too much money, so the lakers are left with guys who are either aging and ring chasing or guys who can only play either good defense with poor offense or good offense with poor defense. Still, the Lakers have gone over the salary cap, meaning they have limited means (e.g., the midlevel exception) to sign additional role players who end up being past their prime or average (at best).

---

Almost every other playoff team's two star players take up a similar amount of cap space as LeBron and AD, who made second and third All NBA Teams last season. The Lakers were missing Vanderbilt, Wood, and Reddish in their series against the Nuggets last year. Vanderbilt is their best 3 and D, and he missed most of the last two days seasons. DLo, who made 20 mil per year, does not perform well in the clutch. I imagine they will use his cap space for someone less streaky and more defensive minded.

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason).

---

What?

---

The Lakers were barely above .500 this year and also last year. LeBron and Anthony Davis's contracts take up too much of the Lakers cap space. But LeBron's not dedicated to winning another championship (only chasing individual accomplishments) and AD is just too injury prone (and also too passive). Neither one is willing to play the heavy and whip their teammates into the best versions of themselves on the hardwood. LeBron is too focused on himself and AD's just not a leader.

AD and LeBron's contracts leave the lakers with about 30% of their cap space to sign ten to thirteen players. The better 3-and-D guys will want too much money, so the lakers are left with guys who are either aging and ring chasing or guys who can only play either good defense with poor offense or good offense with poor defense. Still, the Lakers have gone over the salary cap, meaning they have limited means (e.g., the midlevel exception) to sign additional role players who end up being past their prime or average (at best).

---

AD and LeBron are the reason why the Lakers aren't the worst team in the league. Guys like Bradley Beal, Klay Thompson, Fred VanVleet, Zach LaVine, Tobias Harris, BEN SIMMONS, CJ McCollum are max or near max players. Who are you going to sign to exceed their production?

Where LeBron shoulders the blame is orchestrating or okaying the Westbrook trade. They lost KCP, Kuzma and a ton of draft picks for a negative value max contract. Include letting Caruso walk and signing THT instead, and those are the moves that separate Lakers from still being contenders. Statistically, LeBron and AD are as good or even BETTER than they were in the championship winning season. The team around them got worse.

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason).

---

What?

---

The Lakers were barely above .500 this year and also last year. LeBron and Anthony Davis's contracts take up too much of the Lakers cap space. But LeBron's not dedicated to winning another championship (only chasing individual accomplishments) and AD is just too injury prone (and also too passive). Neither one is willing to play the heavy and whip their teammates into the best versions of themselves on the hardwood. LeBron is too focused on himself and AD's just not a leader.

AD and LeBron's contracts leave the lakers with about 30% of their cap space to sign ten to thirteen players. The better 3-and-D guys will want too much money, so the lakers are left with guys who are either aging and ring chasing or guys who can only play either good defense with poor offense or good offense with poor defense. Still, the Lakers have gone over the salary cap, meaning they have limited means (e.g., the midlevel exception) to sign additional role players who end up being past their prime or average (at best).

---

AD and LeBron are the reason why the Lakers aren't the worst team in the league. Guys like Bradley Beal, Klay Thompson, Fred VanVleet, Zach LaVine, Tobias Harris, BEN SIMMONS, CJ McCollum are max or near max players. Who are you going to sign to exceed their production?

Where LeBron shoulders the blame is orchestrating or okaying the Westbrook trade. They lost KCP, Kuzma and a ton of draft picks for a negative value max contract. Include letting Caruso walk and signing THT instead, and those are the moves that separate Lakers from still being contenders. Statistically, LeBron and AD are as good or even BETTER than they were in the championship winning season. The team around them got worse.

---

Both things can be true at the same time. AD and LeBron may be "the reason why the Lakers are not the worst team in the league", and they are also the reason why the Lakers will not be able to rise above mediocrity.

Pittstop said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason).

---

What?

---

The Lakers were barely above .500 this year and also last year. LeBron and Anthony Davis's contracts take up too much of the Lakers cap space. But LeBron's not dedicated to winning another championship (only chasing individual accomplishments) and AD is just too injury prone (and also too passive). Neither one is willing to play the heavy and whip their teammates into the best versions of themselves on the hardwood. LeBron is too focused on himself and AD's just not a leader.

AD and LeBron's contracts leave the lakers with about 30% of their cap space to sign ten to thirteen players. The better 3-and-D guys will want too much money, so the lakers are left with guys who are either aging and ring chasing or guys who can only play either good defense with poor offense or good offense with poor defense. Still, the Lakers have gone over the salary cap, meaning they have limited means (e.g., the midlevel exception) to sign additional role players who end up being past their prime or average (at best).

---

AD and LeBron are the reason why the Lakers aren't the worst team in the league. Guys like Bradley Beal, Klay Thompson, Fred VanVleet, Zach LaVine, Tobias Harris, BEN SIMMONS, CJ McCollum are max or near max players. Who are you going to sign to exceed their production?

Where LeBron shoulders the blame is orchestrating or okaying the Westbrook trade. They lost KCP, Kuzma and a ton of draft picks for a negative value max contract. Include letting Caruso walk and signing THT instead, and those are the moves that separate Lakers from still being contenders. Statistically, LeBron and AD are as good or even BETTER than they were in the championship winning season. The team around them got worse.

---

Both things can be true at the same time. AD and LeBron may be "the reason why the Lakers are not the worst team in the league", and they are also the reason why the Lakers will not be able to rise above mediocrity.

---

Every other team with cap space would love to have either AD or LeBron at their current salaries. They aren't the problem, although you can certainly argue the Lakers have been hurt by the players and picks they have had to give up to obtain or keep them. NBA championships aren't easy.

Pittstop said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason).

---

What?

---

The Lakers were barely above .500 this year and also last year. LeBron and Anthony Davis's contracts take up too much of the Lakers cap space. But LeBron's not dedicated to winning another championship (only chasing individual accomplishments) and AD is just too injury prone (and also too passive). Neither one is willing to play the heavy and whip their teammates into the best versions of themselves on the hardwood. LeBron is too focused on himself and AD's just not a leader.

AD and LeBron's contracts leave the lakers with about 30% of their cap space to sign ten to thirteen players. The better 3-and-D guys will want too much money, so the lakers are left with guys who are either aging and ring chasing or guys who can only play either good defense with poor offense or good offense with poor defense. Still, the Lakers have gone over the salary cap, meaning they have limited means (e.g., the midlevel exception) to sign additional role players who end up being past their prime or average (at best).

---

AD and LeBron are the reason why the Lakers aren't the worst team in the league. Guys like Bradley Beal, Klay Thompson, Fred VanVleet, Zach LaVine, Tobias Harris, BEN SIMMONS, CJ McCollum are max or near max players. Who are you going to sign to exceed their production?

Where LeBron shoulders the blame is orchestrating or okaying the Westbrook trade. They lost KCP, Kuzma and a ton of draft picks for a negative value max contract. Include letting Caruso walk and signing THT instead, and those are the moves that separate Lakers from still being contenders. Statistically, LeBron and AD are as good or even BETTER than they were in the championship winning season. The team around them got worse.

---

Both things can be true at the same time. AD and LeBron may be "the reason why the Lakers are not the worst team in the league", and they are also the reason why the Lakers will not be able to rise above mediocrity.

---

Absolutely this!

oski003 said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason).

---

What?

---

The Lakers were barely above .500 this year and also last year. LeBron and Anthony Davis's contracts take up too much of the Lakers cap space. But LeBron's not dedicated to winning another championship (only chasing individual accomplishments) and AD is just too injury prone (and also too passive). Neither one is willing to play the heavy and whip their teammates into the best versions of themselves on the hardwood. LeBron is too focused on himself and AD's just not a leader.

AD and LeBron's contracts leave the lakers with about 30% of their cap space to sign ten to thirteen players. The better 3-and-D guys will want too much money, so the lakers are left with guys who are either aging and ring chasing or guys who can only play either good defense with poor offense or good offense with poor defense. Still, the Lakers have gone over the salary cap, meaning they have limited means (e.g., the midlevel exception) to sign additional role players who end up being past their prime or average (at best).

---

AD and LeBron are the reason why the Lakers aren't the worst team in the league. Guys like Bradley Beal, Klay Thompson, Fred VanVleet, Zach LaVine, Tobias Harris, BEN SIMMONS, CJ McCollum are max or near max players. Who are you going to sign to exceed their production?

Where LeBron shoulders the blame is orchestrating or okaying the Westbrook trade. They lost KCP, Kuzma and a ton of draft picks for a negative value max contract. Include letting Caruso walk and signing THT instead, and those are the moves that separate Lakers from still being contenders. Statistically, LeBron and AD are as good or even BETTER than they were in the championship winning season. The team around them got worse.

---

Both things can be true at the same time. AD and LeBron may be "the reason why the Lakers are not the worst team in the league", and they are also the reason why the Lakers will not be able to rise above mediocrity.

---

Every other team with cap space would love to have either AD or LeBron at their current salaries. They aren't the problem, although you can certainly argue the Lakers have been hurt by the players and picks they have had to give up to obtain or keep them. NBA championships aren't easy.

---

Good, then the Lakers should trade them and rebuild. Staying with LeBron and AD means more of the same, which is barely getting into the playoffs but not winning a championship. That may play well for a team that's never sniffed the Larry O'Brien trophy, but for the Lakers, that's not good enough.

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason).

---

What?

---

The Lakers were barely above .500 this year and also last year. LeBron and Anthony Davis's contracts take up too much of the Lakers cap space. But LeBron's not dedicated to winning another championship (only chasing individual accomplishments) and AD is just too injury prone (and also too passive). Neither one is willing to play the heavy and whip their teammates into the best versions of themselves on the hardwood. LeBron is too focused on himself and AD's just not a leader.

AD and LeBron's contracts leave the lakers with about 30% of their cap space to sign ten to thirteen players. The better 3-and-D guys will want too much money, so the lakers are left with guys who are either aging and ring chasing or guys who can only play either good defense with poor offense or good offense with poor defense. Still, the Lakers have gone over the salary cap, meaning they have limited means (e.g., the midlevel exception) to sign additional role players who end up being past their prime or average (at best).

---

AD and LeBron are the reason why the Lakers aren't the worst team in the league. Guys like Bradley Beal, Klay Thompson, Fred VanVleet, Zach LaVine, Tobias Harris, BEN SIMMONS, CJ McCollum are max or near max players. Who are you going to sign to exceed their production?

Where LeBron shoulders the blame is orchestrating or okaying the Westbrook trade. They lost KCP, Kuzma and a ton of draft picks for a negative value max contract. Include letting Caruso walk and signing THT instead, and those are the moves that separate Lakers from still being contenders. Statistically, LeBron and AD are as good or even BETTER than they were in the championship winning season. The team around them got worse.

---

I never said they were the worst team in the league. They're clearly not, as they (barely) made the playoffs in both the past two seasons. However, they're also not a championship team. For the Lakers, it's all about rings, not just being "not the worst."

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason).

---

What?

---

The Lakers were barely above .500 this year and also last year. LeBron and Anthony Davis's contracts take up too much of the Lakers cap space. But LeBron's not dedicated to winning another championship (only chasing individual accomplishments) and AD is just too injury prone (and also too passive). Neither one is willing to play the heavy and whip their teammates into the best versions of themselves on the hardwood. LeBron is too focused on himself and AD's just not a leader.

AD and LeBron's contracts leave the lakers with about 30% of their cap space to sign ten to thirteen players. The better 3-and-D guys will want too much money, so the lakers are left with guys who are either aging and ring chasing or guys who can only play either good defense with poor offense or good offense with poor defense. Still, the Lakers have gone over the salary cap, meaning they have limited means (e.g., the midlevel exception) to sign additional role players who end up being past their prime or average (at best).

---

Almost every other playoff team's two star players take up a similar amount of cap space as LeBron and AD, who made second and third All NBA Teams last season. The Lakers were missing Vanderbilt, Wood, and Reddish in their series against the Nuggets last year. Vanderbilt is their best 3 and D, and he missed most of the last two days seasons. DLo, who made 20 mil per year, does not perform well in the clutch. I imagine they will use his cap space for someone less streaky and more defensive minded.

---

Don't get me wrong, I love Vando; the dude's a defensive beast! But (1) he's not an offensive threat and (2) he was unavailable when the Lakers needed him. As to the second point, the best ability is availability. As to the first point, Vando's such an atrocious 3 point shooter (career average is 29%) that defenses will sag off him when he's behind the arc. Additionally, when healthy, he only averages about 6 points a game. Vando is not a 3-and-D guy; he's just a D guy and an offensive liability.

That your argument is the Lakers needed to rely on a healthy Christian Wood or a healthy Cam Reddish is really proving my point about the Lakers being too top heavy. Neither one is really even league average. Cam Reddish has underperformed his draft pick and is likely on his way out of the league. He signed a minimum contract with the Lakers as a chance to prove he can still play in the league with the hope to earn a bigger deal.

Christian Wood is a good bench big who can give you about some solid minutes every game. But he's not the sixth or even eighth man for a championship team and he's definitely not someone on whom a championship season hangs. The fact that the Lakers needed him to play major minutes in a championship run is damning.

As you pointed out, DLo is a streaky offensive player, at best, but also a (slightly, at best) below average defender. It's not that he's unreliable in big games, it's just that's his game is unreliable. DLo is inconsistent on offense and doesn't put in the work and effort to be good on defense. He was trying to play himself into a bigger contract this year, after failing to get more than $20 million on the market last year. His inconsistent play and defensive lapses will likely cause most teams to look elsewhere. Odds are, he'll pick up his player option because no one else will offer him a bigger deal. If he opts out, however, the Lakers should offer Alex Caruso $15 million next year. (Caruso may be willing to give the Lakers a discount and take that offer since they were the team that gave him a shot at the NBA.)

Pittstop said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason).

---

What?

---

The Lakers were barely above .500 this year and also last year. LeBron and Anthony Davis's contracts take up too much of the Lakers cap space. But LeBron's not dedicated to winning another championship (only chasing individual accomplishments) and AD is just too injury prone (and also too passive). Neither one is willing to play the heavy and whip their teammates into the best versions of themselves on the hardwood. LeBron is too focused on himself and AD's just not a leader.

AD and LeBron's contracts leave the lakers with about 30% of their cap space to sign ten to thirteen players. The better 3-and-D guys will want too much money, so the lakers are left with guys who are either aging and ring chasing or guys who can only play either good defense with poor offense or good offense with poor defense. Still, the Lakers have gone over the salary cap, meaning they have limited means (e.g., the midlevel exception) to sign additional role players who end up being past their prime or average (at best).

---

AD and LeBron are the reason why the Lakers aren't the worst team in the league. Guys like Bradley Beal, Klay Thompson, Fred VanVleet, Zach LaVine, Tobias Harris, BEN SIMMONS, CJ McCollum are max or near max players. Who are you going to sign to exceed their production?

Where LeBron shoulders the blame is orchestrating or okaying the Westbrook trade. They lost KCP, Kuzma and a ton of draft picks for a negative value max contract. Include letting Caruso walk and signing THT instead, and those are the moves that separate Lakers from still being contenders. Statistically, LeBron and AD are as good or even BETTER than they were in the championship winning season. The team around them got worse.

---

Both things can be true at the same time. AD and LeBron may be "the reason why the Lakers are not the worst team in the league", and they are also the reason why the Lakers will not be able to rise above mediocrity.

---

Well, because the latter is just patently not true. They literally won a ring together. LeBron+AD with a better team around them can still win. The Lakers are just in cap and asset hell because of terrible moves they've made since the championship which I've already outlined. Lakers are not going to rise above mediocrity for a few years regardless if they blow up the team or not.

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason).

---

What?

---

The Lakers were barely above .500 this year and also last year. LeBron and Anthony Davis's contracts take up too much of the Lakers cap space. But LeBron's not dedicated to winning another championship (only chasing individual accomplishments) and AD is just too injury prone (and also too passive). Neither one is willing to play the heavy and whip their teammates into the best versions of themselves on the hardwood. LeBron is too focused on himself and AD's just not a leader.

AD and LeBron's contracts leave the lakers with about 30% of their cap space to sign ten to thirteen players. The better 3-and-D guys will want too much money, so the lakers are left with guys who are either aging and ring chasing or guys who can only play either good defense with poor offense or good offense with poor defense. Still, the Lakers have gone over the salary cap, meaning they have limited means (e.g., the midlevel exception) to sign additional role players who end up being past their prime or average (at best).

---

AD and LeBron are the reason why the Lakers aren't the worst team in the league. Guys like Bradley Beal, Klay Thompson, Fred VanVleet, Zach LaVine, Tobias Harris, BEN SIMMONS, CJ McCollum are max or near max players. Who are you going to sign to exceed their production?

Where LeBron shoulders the blame is orchestrating or okaying the Westbrook trade. They lost KCP, Kuzma and a ton of draft picks for a negative value max contract. Include letting Caruso walk and signing THT instead, and those are the moves that separate Lakers from still being contenders. Statistically, LeBron and AD are as good or even BETTER than they were in the championship winning season. The team around them got worse.

---

I never said they were the worst team in the league. They're clearly not, as they (barely) made the playoffs in both the past two seasons. However, they're also not a championship team. For the Lakers, it's all about rings, not just being "not the worst."

---

I didn't imply that you said that. I said they aren't the worst team because of LeBron and AD. You said the Lakers being mediocre is the fault of LeBron and AD. I'm making the point that there aren't any players the Lakers could reasonably get that could replace their salaries and make them a championship team. The Lakers not being a championship team isn't because of (the play of) LeBron and AD. The team just flat out sucks, like among worst teams in the league sucks. Reaves and maybe Vanderbilt might be the only other positive contracts on the roster.

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason).

---

What?

---

The Lakers were barely above .500 this year and also last year. LeBron and Anthony Davis's contracts take up too much of the Lakers cap space. But LeBron's not dedicated to winning another championship (only chasing individual accomplishments) and AD is just too injury prone (and also too passive). Neither one is willing to play the heavy and whip their teammates into the best versions of themselves on the hardwood. LeBron is too focused on himself and AD's just not a leader.

AD and LeBron's contracts leave the lakers with about 30% of their cap space to sign ten to thirteen players. The better 3-and-D guys will want too much money, so the lakers are left with guys who are either aging and ring chasing or guys who can only play either good defense with poor offense or good offense with poor defense. Still, the Lakers have gone over the salary cap, meaning they have limited means (e.g., the midlevel exception) to sign additional role players who end up being past their prime or average (at best).

---

AD and LeBron are the reason why the Lakers aren't the worst team in the league. Guys like Bradley Beal, Klay Thompson, Fred VanVleet, Zach LaVine, Tobias Harris, BEN SIMMONS, CJ McCollum are max or near max players. Who are you going to sign to exceed their production?

Where LeBron shoulders the blame is orchestrating or okaying the Westbrook trade. They lost KCP, Kuzma and a ton of draft picks for a negative value max contract. Include letting Caruso walk and signing THT instead, and those are the moves that separate Lakers from still being contenders. Statistically, LeBron and AD are as good or even BETTER than they were in the championship winning season. The team around them got worse.

---

I never said they were the worst team in the league. They're clearly not, as they (barely) made the playoffs in both the past two seasons. However, they're also not a championship team. For the Lakers, it's all about rings, not just being "not the worst."

---

I didn't imply that you said that. I said they aren't the worst team because of LeBron and AD. You said the Lakers being mediocre is the fault of LeBron and AD. I'm making the point that there aren't any players the Lakers could reasonably get that could replace their salaries and make them a championship team. The Lakers not being a championship team isn't because of (the play of) LeBron and AD. The team just flat out sucks, like among worst teams in the league sucks. Reaves and maybe Vanderbilt might be the only other positive contracts on the roster.

---

I never said they were the worst team in the League. If anything, I agreed with another poster who claimed they were mediocre. The fact of the matter is, the Lakers are now mediocre. It doesn't matter that they won a championship in 2000; that was four years ago, it's not who they are now. The Lakers are mediocre now and have been for the past several years.

FYI, mediocre doesn't mean "worst in the league." Rather, mediocre is about average, especially for a team with the championship history and tradition of the Lakers.

I agree that the Lakers lack of draft picks is an issue, but it's a much smaller one than that they lack cap space thanks to LeBron and AD's contracts. Even when the Lakers have had a first round pick, as they did this past year, they haven't been able to spend it on someone who can help them win now. That said, they have managed to find real undrafted gems, including Austin Reaves and Alex Caruso.

What the Lakers need is cap space to sign effective role players (especially 3-and-D guys). With LeBron and AD taking up 70% of the Lakers's cap space, the Lakers don't have much of a margin for error in signing effective role players. If they sign someone for $10-20 million and he doesn't produce on both ends (as they did with DLo and arguably Reaves, Vando, and Rui Hachimura* this year) they are too thin to be able to win a championship.

Unfortunately, for the Lakers, that's exactly what happened. Gabe Vincent ($10.5 million) missed all but 11 games, Rui ($15.7 million) regressed, and Reaves ($12 million) never reached the next level. On top of that DLo ($17.3 million) was inconsistent and poor on defense and Vando ($4.5 million) was injured for the second half of the season. That left the lakers relying on minimum contract type players to step up and play key roles. Few, if any, championship team can win by relying on minimum contract players as key role players.

Again, all of this is the result of LeBron and Ad's contracts re the Lakers's cap space under the CBA.** If they were to take a haircut of say $8 million each, that would give them enough money to lure another $16 million 3-and-D role player. An $8 million haircut isn't going to hurt LeBron (who's a billionaire) or AD (who's earned over a quarter of a billion in NBA salary), especially since they'd earn back even more in marketing as NBA champs.

So long as LeBron and AD keep taking up 70% of the Lakers's cap space, they're not going to win another championship.

*While I actually really like all if these players and think the Lakers will struggle to find better value (i.e., production to cost ratio) anywhere else, all of them underperformed. Reaves struggled early and was porous on defense all year, Vando was unavailable due to injury, and Rui seemed to take a step back this year, especially in the playoffs.

**To be clear, I'm against the salary cap. In the NBA, the salary cap was instituted by the owners, not the players. Too many owners threw huge money value contracts at players who subsequently underperformed. This kept the teams mired in mediocrity until they could get out from under the albatross contracts. To prevent that happening in the future (while also ensuring the owners make more profit), the owners demanded salary caps. Of course, the owners and the league tried to make it look like the salary caps were implemented to create parity and competitive balance, but really, it was to save the owners from their own stupidity and to put more money into the owners' pockets.

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason).

---

What?

---

The Lakers were barely above .500 this year and also last year. LeBron and Anthony Davis's contracts take up too much of the Lakers cap space. But LeBron's not dedicated to winning another championship (only chasing individual accomplishments) and AD is just too injury prone (and also too passive). Neither one is willing to play the heavy and whip their teammates into the best versions of themselves on the hardwood. LeBron is too focused on himself and AD's just not a leader.

AD and LeBron's contracts leave the lakers with about 30% of their cap space to sign ten to thirteen players. The better 3-and-D guys will want too much money, so the lakers are left with guys who are either aging and ring chasing or guys who can only play either good defense with poor offense or good offense with poor defense. Still, the Lakers have gone over the salary cap, meaning they have limited means (e.g., the midlevel exception) to sign additional role players who end up being past their prime or average (at best).

---

AD and LeBron are the reason why the Lakers aren't the worst team in the league. Guys like Bradley Beal, Klay Thompson, Fred VanVleet, Zach LaVine, Tobias Harris, BEN SIMMONS, CJ McCollum are max or near max players. Who are you going to sign to exceed their production?

Where LeBron shoulders the blame is orchestrating or okaying the Westbrook trade. They lost KCP, Kuzma and a ton of draft picks for a negative value max contract. Include letting Caruso walk and signing THT instead, and those are the moves that separate Lakers from still being contenders. Statistically, LeBron and AD are as good or even BETTER than they were in the championship winning season. The team around them got worse.

---

I never said they were the worst team in the league. They're clearly not, as they (barely) made the playoffs in both the past two seasons. However, they're also not a championship team. For the Lakers, it's all about rings, not just being "not the worst."

---

I didn't imply that you said that. I said they aren't the worst team because of LeBron and AD. You said the Lakers being mediocre is the fault of LeBron and AD. I'm making the point that there aren't any players the Lakers could reasonably get that could replace their salaries and make them a championship team. The Lakers not being a championship team isn't because of (the play of) LeBron and AD. The team just flat out sucks, like among worst teams in the league sucks. Reaves and maybe Vanderbilt might be the only other positive contracts on the roster.

---

I never said they were the worst team in the League. If anything, I agreed with another poster who claimed they were mediocre. The fact of the matter is, the Lakers are now mediocre. It doesn't matter that they won a championship in 2000; that was four years ago, it's not who they are now. The Lakers are mediocre now and have been for the past several years.

FYI, mediocre doesn't mean "worst in the league." Rather, mediocre is about average, especially for a team with the championship history and tradition of the Lakers.

I agree that the Lakers lack of draft picks is an issue, but it's a much smaller one than that they lack cap space thanks to LeBron and AD's contracts. Even when the Lakers have had a first round pick, as they did this past year, they haven't been able to spend it on someone who can help them win now. That said, they have managed to find real undrafted gems, including Austin Reaves and Alex Caruso.

What the Lakers need is cap space to sign effective role players (especially 3-and-D guys). With LeBron and AD taking up 70% of the Lakers's cap space, the Lakers don't have much of a margin for error in signing effective role players. If they sign someone for $10-20 million and he doesn't produce on both ends (as they did with DLo and arguably Reaves, Vando, and Rui Hachimura* this year) they are too thin to be able to win a championship.

Unfortunately, for the Lakers, that's exactly what happened. Gabe Vincent ($10.5 million) missed all but 11 games, Rui ($15.7 million) regressed, and Reaves ($12 million) never reached the next level. On top of that DLo ($17.3 million) was inconsistent and poor on defense and Vando ($4.5 million) was injured for the second half of the season. That left the lakers relying on minimum contract type players to step up and play key roles. Few, if any, championship team can win by relying on minimum contract players as key role players.

Again, all of this is the result of LeBron and Ad's contracts re the Lakers's cap space under the CBA.** If they were to take a haircut of say $8 million each, that would give them enough money to lure another $16 million 3-and-D role player. An $8 million haircut isn't going to hurt LeBron (who's a billionaire) or AD (who's earned over a quarter of a billion in NBA salary), especially since they'd earn back even more in marketing as NBA champs.

So long as LeBron and AD keep taking up 70% of the Lakers's cap space, they're not going to win another championship.

*While I actually really like all if these players and think the Lakers will struggle to find better value (i.e., production to cost ratio) anywhere else, all of them underperformed. Reaves struggled early and was porous on defense all year, Vando was unavailable due to injury, and Rui seemed to take a step back this year, especially in the playoffs.

**To be clear, I'm against the salary cap. In the NBA, the salary cap was instituted by the owners, not the players. Too many owners threw huge money value contracts at players who subsequently underperformed. This kept the teams mired in mediocrity until they could get out from under the albatross contracts. To prevent that happening in the future (while also ensuring the owners make more profit), the owners demanded salary caps. Of course, the owners and the league tried to make it look like the salary caps were implemented to create parity and competitive balance, but really, it was to save the owners from their own stupidity and to put more money into the owners' pockets.

---

The Celtics are in the NBA finals. They have a total salary of 183.4 million this year. Jaylen Brown makes 57 million per year. LeBron and AD make 87 million. In no way do they have to take up 70% of a team's salary cap. Perhaps your confusion lies in not understanding how the cap works? Again, other teams would salivate to have James or AD without having to give up anything.

oski003 said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason).

---

What?

---

The Lakers were barely above .500 this year and also last year. LeBron and Anthony Davis's contracts take up too much of the Lakers cap space. But LeBron's not dedicated to winning another championship (only chasing individual accomplishments) and AD is just too injury prone (and also too passive). Neither one is willing to play the heavy and whip their teammates into the best versions of themselves on the hardwood. LeBron is too focused on himself and AD's just not a leader.

AD and LeBron's contracts leave the lakers with about 30% of their cap space to sign ten to thirteen players. The better 3-and-D guys will want too much money, so the lakers are left with guys who are either aging and ring chasing or guys who can only play either good defense with poor offense or good offense with poor defense. Still, the Lakers have gone over the salary cap, meaning they have limited means (e.g., the midlevel exception) to sign additional role players who end up being past their prime or average (at best).

---

AD and LeBron are the reason why the Lakers aren't the worst team in the league. Guys like Bradley Beal, Klay Thompson, Fred VanVleet, Zach LaVine, Tobias Harris, BEN SIMMONS, CJ McCollum are max or near max players. Who are you going to sign to exceed their production?

Where LeBron shoulders the blame is orchestrating or okaying the Westbrook trade. They lost KCP, Kuzma and a ton of draft picks for a negative value max contract. Include letting Caruso walk and signing THT instead, and those are the moves that separate Lakers from still being contenders. Statistically, LeBron and AD are as good or even BETTER than they were in the championship winning season. The team around them got worse.

---

Both things can be true at the same time. AD and LeBron may be "the reason why the Lakers are not the worst team in the league", and they are also the reason why the Lakers will not be able to rise above mediocrity.

---

Every other team with cap space would love to have either AD or LeBron at their current salaries. They aren't the problem, although you can certainly argue the Lakers have been hurt by the players and picks they have had to give up to obtain or keep them. NBA championships aren't easy.

---

Not as the 'max contract linchpins' of their franchises, around who everything else is put together (with vet minimums and mid-level exceptions), and revolves. And with AD and LeBron, making what they make - and would demand - there wouldn't be much 'cap room' left to build some juggernaut.

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason).

---

What?

---

The Lakers were barely above .500 this year and also last year. LeBron and Anthony Davis's contracts take up too much of the Lakers cap space. But LeBron's not dedicated to winning another championship (only chasing individual accomplishments) and AD is just too injury prone (and also too passive). Neither one is willing to play the heavy and whip their teammates into the best versions of themselves on the hardwood. LeBron is too focused on himself and AD's just not a leader.

AD and LeBron's contracts leave the lakers with about 30% of their cap space to sign ten to thirteen players. The better 3-and-D guys will want too much money, so the lakers are left with guys who are either aging and ring chasing or guys who can only play either good defense with poor offense or good offense with poor defense. Still, the Lakers have gone over the salary cap, meaning they have limited means (e.g., the midlevel exception) to sign additional role players who end up being past their prime or average (at best).

---

AD and LeBron are the reason why the Lakers aren't the worst team in the league. Guys like Bradley Beal, Klay Thompson, Fred VanVleet, Zach LaVine, Tobias Harris, BEN SIMMONS, CJ McCollum are max or near max players. Who are you going to sign to exceed their production?

Where LeBron shoulders the blame is orchestrating or okaying the Westbrook trade. They lost KCP, Kuzma and a ton of draft picks for a negative value max contract. Include letting Caruso walk and signing THT instead, and those are the moves that separate Lakers from still being contenders. Statistically, LeBron and AD are as good or even BETTER than they were in the championship winning season. The team around them got worse.

---

I never said they were the worst team in the league. They're clearly not, as they (barely) made the playoffs in both the past two seasons. However, they're also not a championship team. For the Lakers, it's all about rings, not just being "not the worst."

---

I didn't imply that you said that. I said they aren't the worst team because of LeBron and AD. You said the Lakers being mediocre is the fault of LeBron and AD. I'm making the point that there aren't any players the Lakers could reasonably get that could replace their salaries and make them a championship team. The Lakers not being a championship team isn't because of (the play of) LeBron and AD. The team just flat out sucks, like among worst teams in the league sucks. Reaves and maybe Vanderbilt might be the only other positive contracts on the roster.

---

I never said they were the worst team in the League. If anything, I agreed with another poster who claimed they were mediocre. The fact of the matter is, the Lakers are now mediocre. It doesn't matter that they won a championship in 2000; that was four years ago, it's not who they are now. The Lakers are mediocre now and have been for the past several years.

FYI, mediocre doesn't mean "worst in the league." Rather, mediocre is about average, especially for a team with the championship history and tradition of the Lakers.

I agree that the Lakers lack of draft picks is an issue, but it's a much smaller one than that they lack cap space thanks to LeBron and AD's contracts. Even when the Lakers have had a first round pick, as they did this past year, they haven't been able to spend it on someone who can help them win now. That said, they have managed to find real undrafted gems, including Austin Reaves and Alex Caruso.

What the Lakers need is cap space to sign effective role players (especially 3-and-D guys). With LeBron and AD taking up 70% of the Lakers's cap space, the Lakers don't have much of a margin for error in signing effective role players. If they sign someone for $10-20 million and he doesn't produce on both ends (as they did with DLo and arguably Reaves, Vando, and Rui Hachimura* this year) they are too thin to be able to win a championship.

Unfortunately, for the Lakers, that's exactly what happened. Gabe Vincent ($10.5 million) missed all but 11 games, Rui ($15.7 million) regressed, and Reaves ($12 million) never reached the next level. On top of that DLo ($17.3 million) was inconsistent and poor on defense and Vando ($4.5 million) was injured for the second half of the season. That left the lakers relying on minimum contract type players to step up and play key roles. Few, if any, championship team can win by relying on minimum contract players as key role players.

Again, all of this is the result of LeBron and Ad's contracts re the Lakers's cap space under the CBA.** If they were to take a haircut of say $8 million each, that would give them enough money to lure another $16 million 3-and-D role player. An $8 million haircut isn't going to hurt LeBron (who's a billionaire) or AD (who's earned over a quarter of a billion in NBA salary), especially since they'd earn back even more in marketing as NBA champs.

So long as LeBron and AD keep taking up 70% of the Lakers's cap space, they're not going to win another championship.

*While I actually really like all if these players and think the Lakers will struggle to find better value (i.e., production to cost ratio) anywhere else, all of them underperformed. Reaves struggled early and was porous on defense all year, Vando was unavailable due to injury, and Rui seemed to take a step back this year, especially in the playoffs.

**To be clear, I'm against the salary cap. In the NBA, the salary cap was instituted by the owners, not the players. Too many owners threw huge money value contracts at players who subsequently underperformed. This kept the teams mired in mediocrity until they could get out from under the albatross contracts. To prevent that happening in the future (while also ensuring the owners make more profit), the owners demanded salary caps. Of course, the owners and the league tried to make it look like the salary caps were implemented to create parity and competitive balance, but really, it was to save the owners from their own stupidity and to put more money into the owners' pockets.

---

The Celtics are in the NBA finals. They have a total salary of 183.4 million this year. Jaylen Brown makes 57 million per year. LeBron and AD make 87 million. In no way do they have to take up 70% of a team's salary cap. Perhaps your confusion lies in not understanding how the cap works? Again, other teams would salivate to have James or AD without having to give up anything.

---

I agree that LeBron and AD don't have to take up 70%* of the Lakers's cap space, but under the (previous) CBA a supermax contract included a salary up to 35% of a team's cap space. At the time LeBron and AD each signed their supermax deals, they each agreed to contracts worth 35% of the team's cap space for the next year. With the increase in the salary cap exceeding the 8% raise built into their contracts, LeBron and AD wound up taking up 65% of the Lakers cap space this past year.

That said, there's no reason LeBron and AD couldn't taken less than supermax contracts. Take a look at their Crypto roommates, the Clippers. Kawhi Leonard signed an extension worth less than he was entitled to in order to make it easier to re-sign Paul George and/or James Harden. If the goal is to win rings, then having multiple supermax deals works against that goal.

Your example of Jaylen Brown reinforces that point. This year was Jaylen's last on the first extension he signed after his rookie contract. That meant he was ineligible for the supermax. (Similarly, Jayson Tatum is also on his pre-supermax eligible extension.) Combined, their contracts took up 47.1% of the Celtics's cap space.

This allowed the Celtics the space to trade for Kristaps Porzingis and Jrue Holiday (while keeping Derrick White and Al Horcord) without even going into the first apron (of this year's CBA). If Jaylen and Jayson Tatum were both on supermax deals, the Celtics wouldn't have been able to sign both Porzingis and Holiday without going into the first apron (or possibly even the second apron), assuming they kept Al Horford and Derrick White.

With the new CBA, the salary cap is a big deal (especially the second apron). The Lakers screwed the pooch by extending Lebron and AD's with supermax deals. They don't have enough cap space to round out the roster with stellar key role players without going into the first (or worse, the second) apron.

*I just took another look, they took up 65% of the cap space this year.

01Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

LaBron is still a great player, but his demands regarding the makeup of the team would, at this point, I think be in the category of "baggage". And don't you think he'd be in the coach's ear regarding playing time for Bronny?

---

It's like when Magic got Paul Westhead fired. LeBron's bigger than the coach, or even the team. The unfortunate thing for whatever team he plays for is, he's already got enough rings, to where that isn't his primary motivator. Only one guy on earth could be on a team and admit that his primary motivation is that he plays his last year with his son on the team.

---

LeBron, on the other hand is just only concerned about himself and his own interests. He really doesn't care about winning championships as much as he cares about his individual achievements. If the Lakers give in to his demands, it'll just cement their mediocre status, not get them a championship.

---

Don't think this is totally true. LeBron is also concerned with his legacy. Right now he's clearly 1b (or 2) to Jordan's 1a. The only way he changes the narrative is another ring. He may not be hungry like he used to be, but he's not going to go to a subpar team just because they will draft Bronny.

---

As much as it pains me to say it, he's already on a subpar team. The Lakers are not good. LeBron is a major reason why they're as bad as they are (AD is another major reason).

---

What?

---

The Lakers were barely above .500 this year and also last year. LeBron and Anthony Davis's contracts take up too much of the Lakers cap space. But LeBron's not dedicated to winning another championship (only chasing individual accomplishments) and AD is just too injury prone (and also too passive). Neither one is willing to play the heavy and whip their teammates into the best versions of themselves on the hardwood. LeBron is too focused on himself and AD's just not a leader.

AD and LeBron's contracts leave the lakers with about 30% of their cap space to sign ten to thirteen players. The better 3-and-D guys will want too much money, so the lakers are left with guys who are either aging and ring chasing or guys who can only play either good defense with poor offense or good offense with poor defense. Still, the Lakers have gone over the salary cap, meaning they have limited means (e.g., the midlevel exception) to sign additional role players who end up being past their prime or average (at best).

---

AD and LeBron are the reason why the Lakers aren't the worst team in the league. Guys like Bradley Beal, Klay Thompson, Fred VanVleet, Zach LaVine, Tobias Harris, BEN SIMMONS, CJ McCollum are max or near max players. Who are you going to sign to exceed their production?

Where LeBron shoulders the blame is orchestrating or okaying the Westbrook trade. They lost KCP, Kuzma and a ton of draft picks for a negative value max contract. Include letting Caruso walk and signing THT instead, and those are the moves that separate Lakers from still being contenders. Statistically, LeBron and AD are as good or even BETTER than they were in the championship winning season. The team around them got worse.

---

I never said they were the worst team in the league. They're clearly not, as they (barely) made the playoffs in both the past two seasons. However, they're also not a championship team. For the Lakers, it's all about rings, not just being "not the worst."

---

I didn't imply that you said that. I said they aren't the worst team because of LeBron and AD. You said the Lakers being mediocre is the fault of LeBron and AD. I'm making the point that there aren't any players the Lakers could reasonably get that could replace their salaries and make them a championship team. The Lakers not being a championship team isn't because of (the play of) LeBron and AD. The team just flat out sucks, like among worst teams in the league sucks. Reaves and maybe Vanderbilt might be the only other positive contracts on the roster.

---

I never said they were the worst team in the League. If anything, I agreed with another poster who claimed they were mediocre. The fact of the matter is, the Lakers are now mediocre. It doesn't matter that they won a championship in 2000; that was four years ago, it's not who they are now. The Lakers are mediocre now and have been for the past several years.

FYI, mediocre doesn't mean "worst in the league." Rather, mediocre is about average, especially for a team with the championship history and tradition of the Lakers.

I agree that the Lakers lack of draft picks is an issue, but it's a much smaller one than that they lack cap space thanks to LeBron and AD's contracts. Even when the Lakers have had a first round pick, as they did this past year, they haven't been able to spend it on someone who can help them win now. That said, they have managed to find real undrafted gems, including Austin Reaves and Alex Caruso.

What the Lakers need is cap space to sign effective role players (especially 3-and-D guys). With LeBron and AD taking up 70% of the Lakers's cap space, the Lakers don't have much of a margin for error in signing effective role players. If they sign someone for $10-20 million and he doesn't produce on both ends (as they did with DLo and arguably Reaves, Vando, and Rui Hachimura* this year) they are too thin to be able to win a championship.

Unfortunately, for the Lakers, that's exactly what happened. Gabe Vincent ($10.5 million) missed all but 11 games, Rui ($15.7 million) regressed, and Reaves ($12 million) never reached the next level. On top of that DLo ($17.3 million) was inconsistent and poor on defense and Vando ($4.5 million) was injured for the second half of the season. That left the lakers relying on minimum contract type players to step up and play key roles. Few, if any, championship team can win by relying on minimum contract players as key role players.

Again, all of this is the result of LeBron and Ad's contracts re the Lakers's cap space under the CBA.** If they were to take a haircut of say $8 million each, that would give them enough money to lure another $16 million 3-and-D role player. An $8 million haircut isn't going to hurt LeBron (who's a billionaire) or AD (who's earned over a quarter of a billion in NBA salary), especially since they'd earn back even more in marketing as NBA champs.

So long as LeBron and AD keep taking up 70% of the Lakers's cap space, they're not going to win another championship.

*While I actually really like all if these players and think the Lakers will struggle to find better value (i.e., production to cost ratio) anywhere else, all of them underperformed. Reaves struggled early and was porous on defense all year, Vando was unavailable due to injury, and Rui seemed to take a step back this year, especially in the playoffs.

**To be clear, I'm against the salary cap. In the NBA, the salary cap was instituted by the owners, not the players. Too many owners threw huge money value contracts at players who subsequently underperformed. This kept the teams mired in mediocrity until they could get out from under the albatross contracts. To prevent that happening in the future (while also ensuring the owners make more profit), the owners demanded salary caps. Of course, the owners and the league tried to make it look like the salary caps were implemented to create parity and competitive balance, but really, it was to save the owners from their own stupidity and to put more money into the owners' pockets.

---

The Celtics are in the NBA finals. They have a total salary of 183.4 million this year. Jaylen Brown makes 57 million per year. LeBron and AD make 87 million. In no way do they have to take up 70% of a team's salary cap. Perhaps your confusion lies in not understanding how the cap works? Again, other teams would salivate to have James or AD without having to give up anything.

---

I agree that LeBron and AD don't have to take up 70%* of the Lakers's cap space, but under the (previous) CBA a supermax contract included a salary up to 35% of a team's cap space. At the time LeBron and AD each signed their supermax deals, they each agreed to contracts worth 35% of the team's cap space for the next year. With the increase in the salary cap exceeding the 8% raise built into their contracts, LeBron and AD wound up taking up 65% of the Lakers cap space this past year.

That said, there's no reason LeBron and AD couldn't taken less than supermax contracts. Take a look at their Crypto roommates, the Clippers. Kawhi Leonard signed an extension worth less than he was entitled to in order to make it easier to re-sign Paul George and/or James Harden. If the goal is to win rings, then having multiple supermax deals works against that goal.

Your example of Jaylen Brown reinforces that point. This year was Jaylen's last on the first extension he signed after his rookie contract. That meant he was ineligible for the supermax. (Similarly, Jayson Tatum is also on his pre-supermax eligible extension.) Combined, their contracts took up 47.1% of the Celtics's cap space.

This allowed the Celtics the space to trade for Kristaps Porzingis and Jrue Holiday (while keeping Derrick White and Al Horcord) without even going into the first apron (of this year's CBA). If Jaylen and Jayson Tatum were both on supermax deals, the Celtics wouldn't have been able to sign both Porzingis and Holiday without going into the first apron (or possibly even the second apron), assuming they kept Al Horford and Derrick White.

With the new CBA, the salary cap is a big deal (especially the second apron). The Lakers screwed the pooch by extending Lebron and AD's with supermax deals. They don't have enough cap space to round out the roster with stellar key role players without going into the first (or worse, the second) apron.

*I just took another look, they took up 65% of the cap space this year.

---

It is a soft salary cap. Lakers were only 11th highest paid team last year.