Why LA Lakers' Model for Success Is Unsustainable in Today's NBA
The Los Angeles Lakers are the best franchise in American sports over the last 65 years, but their past model of success doesn’t guarantee future success. In fact, it’s unsustainable in today’s NBA. There’s no argument about whether the Lakers and their fans have reason to be proud of their accomplishments. Over the span of nearly two-thirds of a century, they’vecompeted for nearly half of all NBA les, having been to the Finals 31 times in 64 years. Not even the Yankees, with 25 pennants since 1949, can come close to that.
They’ve missed the playoffs just five times—ever. And they’ve only missed the postseason twice since America celebrated the Bicentennial. They’ve won 3,170 games, more than any team in NBA history, and more than the Boston Celtics, who have 62 fewer wins in 91 more contests. The Lakers have a franchise winning percentage of .619, the best in the Association and the best in any of the four major American professional sports leagues. They have 440 playoff wins, per Basketball-Reference, 96 more than any other team.
The Celtics may have one more le, but when it comes to being in the le picture, they haven’t been as consistent. Year-in, year-out, the Lakers have been the most successful team in the NBA, and all of American sports. The evidence is just too compelling to deny that. Is it any wonder that Lakers fans have grown to not just hope, but even expect their team to contend for the le every year? So, even with Dwight Howard’s departure, there’s little wonder that Lakers Nation just points to the cap space they’ll have in 2014 and assumes that it’s a matter of signing free agents and reloading. According to Sham Sports, the only contracts they have next season belongs to Steve Nash for $9.7 million (and that’s if he doesn’t retire) and Nick Young, who has a player option for $1.3 million.
The Lakers have always done it. So why can’t they just do it again? Well, let’s think about that.
For 1,200 years, Rome stood as the pinnacle of civilization, but when it started to fall, the hubris of its citizenry led them to believe that it would always stand because it had always stood. Some argue that was the greatest factor in its eventual fall. Rome failed to recognize the way the world had changed, that other empires had grown, technology had developed and military strategies which had previously been successful were no longer useful. Similarly, the Lakers are settling into that same stew, assuring themselves that past portends future, not recognizing the way the league has changed or how the Collective Bargaining Agreement has changed the way that championship teams and contenders are built. The Lakers’ model has always been simple: Get the best center in the league, and build around him by players you draft.
In their inception, they got George Mikan, who was the key piece in their first five banners. The first five wins in Minneapolis are unique in that he was the lone great center on the team. Their next le win came over a decade later in 1972, three years after they traded for Wilt Chamberlain. They’d tried and failed repeatedly to get past the Boston Celtics through their years of domination. But when they added Chamberlain to Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, it eventually paid dividends and they won the le (though Baylor wasn’t a major factor by then).
Four years later they traded to get Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and started to build around him. In 1979 Jerry Buss bought the team for $67 million, and the following season the Lakers would win their first le with Abdul-Jabbar, aided by rookie phenom Earvin “Magic” Johnson. They would go on to win four more les with that tandem.
In the 1996 offseason they acquired Shaquille O’Neal via free agency, who became the cornerstone of their next three les, along with the up-and-coming superstar, Kobe Bryant, whom they obtained in a draft-day trade. After not competing for a le during three consecutive years, Kobe Bryant starting kicking up dust, suggesting he wanted to be traded unless the Lakers made a move to get him “help.” The Lakers acquiesced and got him Pau Gasol, arguably the best center in the league at the time.
Gasol helped Bryant to win two more les.
And there you have it. In their 12 les since moving to Los Angeles, there have been three consistencies: They’ve always had the best center in the game when they won; they’ve always taken him from somewhere else; and they’ve always combined him with an elite guard whom they drafted and groomed. They tried to repeat that formula in getting Howard, but Howard fled and that is all the difference. Now they don’t have the draft picks or the trade chips to follow through on that formula.
This is important to realize because the whole notion of the Lakers "having always done it, so they’re going to find a way to do it" has to take into account how they’vedone it. Who do they have to offer as trade chips? What do they have for draft picks to land the next great Laker?
Now, the Lakers will be bad this year, but they won’t be bad as the others who arewiggin’ for (Andrew) Wiggins. They’ll get ping pong balls, but they won’t get enough to have a realistic chance at getting him. The reality is they aren’t going to bottom out this year. They’ll still have a capable Pau Gasol, who isn’t worth his $20 million check, but he’s better than most, and they still have Steve Nash. If Kobe Bryant comes back, they’ll still have him, too. They may only win 30 to 40 games (depending on if and when Bryant returns and how well he plays), enough to qualify for around the 17-20th “best” team in the league, right in that sweet spot of missing the playoffs and not getting a good enough pick to make you feel better about it.
Their 2015 pick, unless they’re a bottom-five team (which they probably won’t be) goes to the Phoenix Suns. By then, even whatever youthful drink Bryant is gulping will have lost its potency. They get to keep their 2016 pick, and that might be a top-three pick. But that would also mean they’re a bottom-three team. And then in 2017, Orlando probably gets their pick. So the chances of the Lakers scoring a great player in the draft aren’t very realistic. They have two first-round picks in five years, counting this year, and only one of them is likely to be a top-10 pick. And trades don’t look better. They have almost no assets worth talking about. They couldn’t trade Bryant’s massive contract, even if they wanted to. If they could, it would be for horrible, long-term contracts. Teams aren’t itching to send $30 million worth of young and talented future for a Hall of Famer in his mid-30 with a blown Achilles.
And they wouldn’t want to anyway.
Pau Gasol isn’t going anywhere. Again, who is going to send $20 million worth of player to the Lakers for an aging center with one year on his contract? The only incentive to trade for him is to get the expiring contract, so the return would mean that the Lakers would have to take on bad contracts, which would eat up their cap space next summer. Who else are they going to move? Steve Nash is too old. Jordan Hill has promise, but not enough to really offer anything for. They don’t have any trade chips. And as previously discussed, they’ve tapped out on their first-round picks so they can’t trade them, either. Teams aren’t ready to fire off their premier players for the Lakers 2019 first-round pick. The bottom line is that in the big picture of the trade market, the Lakers are flat broke. They can’t trade for anyone and they don’t have enough draft picks to build a team around.
But what about all that cash they have to spend in free agency in 2014? That’s got to be worth something right?
For all the talk about Dwight Howard’s move to the Houston Rockets and the freed-up cap space the Lakers will have in 2014, the most salient point of all gets lost: Howard’s move signifies that the Lakers model has gone the way of Rome in 410 after Alaric I sacked the city. It’s not just an event; it’s a demarcation of the beginning of the empire's end.
Howard’s move proves one thing about the new way of the NBA and the impact of the new CBA: It’s not about who you play for, it’s about who you play with. It’s not the name on the front of your jersey, or even on the back of it. It’s the name you can read on the back of your teammate’s jersey.
And, as future Hall of Famers Bryant and Dirk Nowitzki discovered, if that name belongs to a player in his mid-30s, elite players in their prime aren’t ready to band together with past greats when they can ally with the future of the league.
But they’re the Lakers! Everyone would love to come and play for the Lakers! The allure of playing for the legacy of the Purple and Gold doesn’t hold the charm that some in Lakers Nation would like to believe. For every player who grew up dreaming of helping the Lakers win the le, there are at least two who grew up with hopes of defeating them for a le.
Nor is there really a great history of free agents coming to LA.
In fact, other than Shaquille O’Neal, what franchise free agent has ever come to the Lakers? Their reputation for landing whomever they want, whenever they want is inflated to the point of hyperbole. After O’Neal, who is their biggest free-agent acquisition? Metta World Peace?
Now you might argue that’s only because they didn’t have cap space, but again, let’s not look past what just happened this summer. They got left at the dance.
This notion that NBA superstars in the prime of their careers are going to abandon their teams, leave millions of dollars on the table and rush to the City of Angels for the chance to play with Kobe Bryant is not only completely unrealistic, it’s the exactopposite of what Howard just did.
Howard left millions of dollars on the table to get out of LA, in part, according to World Peace, as reported by Mark Median of the Los Angeles Daily News, so he wouldn’t have to play with Bryant. That’s pretty telling.
Is it possible that other players would choose a different path? Sure, but why would they? What benefit does LeBron James or Carmelo Anthony have to leave where they’re at and come to Los Angeles? Money? Neither player is in need of that. In fact, James received $40 million in endorsements last year, even more than Bryant’s $32 million, according to KurtBadenhausen of Forbes. He was the NBA’s second-highest earner in 2013. Anthony was sixth. Neither player is going to get paid more if they switch teams. Championships? Going to LA is no guarantee of winning one, or even having a chance at winning one. Sorry, the appeal of deferring to a 35-year-old Kobe Bryant (as he’ll be by then) probably doesn’t have as much appeal as some might think.
Nor does taking all the blame from media and fans if the team loses while getting none of the glory if they win hold any appeal. If the Lakers were to win another le, it would be “Kobe’s sixth” not “LeBron’s third” (or fourth) or “Melo’s first” (or second).
If either player were to abandon their present team to win, they would do so to go to a team that has the pieces in place already. Why would they take the Lakers and promises of what might happen over a chance to play with Kyrie Irving and company in Cleveland, or Derrick Rose and company in Chicago? The Lakers' legacy is great, but you can’t win the banners that have already been won. Players in the present aren’t playing to uphold the glory of the past; they are playing to carve out a legacy for the future.
None of the banners hanging from the rafters in the Staples Center help the Lakers now. None of the players from those great teams can step down and play now.
What about the likes of Paul George, Kyrie Irving and the other restricted-free-agent names who have been bandied about? Well, they’re restricted. That means that whatever the Lakers decide to do, they aren’t going to land George, Irving or any other franchise-level RFA. They will all have their extensions before they ever hit the market, and if by some miracle they do hit the market, the respective team will match any offers.
So that leaves the Lakers with very few good options in 2014. The sad reality of that market is that it’s getting blown out of proportion. A big part of it rests on the notion of players leaving their teams, which may or may not happen. Take an honest look at the 2014 free-agent class. James and Anthony could just as easily stay. That they would leave at all is largely just speculation. Look at the list of players who don’t have options, and where there are no team or player options.
Look at just the guaranteed unrestricted free agents. The best two players who are still in their prime on that list are Luol Deng and Danny Granger. That’s the most the Lakers might reasonably hope to acquire. Having money to spend doesn’t guarantee you get great players. Just ask the Detroit Pistons. It’s not a future the Lakers fans want to face, but while they view the smoldering remains of their failing franchise as the proverbial Visigoths sack the city, it’s going to start to sink in. This isn’t going to be another year where the Lakers step back and rebuild. This is the end of the empire.
The greatness of the Lakers legacy is without question, but the relevance on that greatness to their future is not. Without a playoff roster at present, or any meaningful way of acquiring one for at least three or four years, the Lakers are about to set on their darkest path in franchise history.
Lakers will have to rebuild eventually... and tbh, lebron and melo are both not coming in 2014.. hilarious rumors honestly, mitch is probably startin that . there is no reason for lebron to come to LA, and no reason for Melo to leave NY, hes not winning either way. Best bet after kobe retires, start rebuilding, drafting and developing some players.
All it takes is one Young Superstar. That's all it takes. Then you put exceptional role players around him. The Miami heat model isn't sustainable either, neither is the knicks or nets. The Lakers will ALWAYS have the GOLDEN BRAND, that attracts star players. Hate all you want, its the truth. After Lebron, retires, or leaves Miami, nobody will want to go their. The LAKERS BRAND lives on.....BOW DOWN ES....
I have no idea who Kelly Scalleta is, but if you just posted an article from a female reporter............................
I'm just grateful Pierce flinched in front of Artest and Duncan pussied out at the end of 7.
They would of Begged either way for the Return
Duncan didn't pussy out like you did from The Sweep.
sportswriter
Howard might be the most hated man in LA for many years to come if fortunes turn to for a long period of time.
It's quite hilarious how he will get the blame while Achilles will get off Scott free collecting a blank check.
we get it, everything falls into place for the laker nation all the time, but what if it doesn't? What if grizzlies say you kobe and let him rot? Anything can happen and I feel outside of the heat, league is up for grabs
Howard genuinely looks happy in that Rockets pick. I imagine it must be a relief to not play for an en led fanbase or with a sociopath as your leader.
some serious truth bombs in that article. Laker fans don't realize the salad days are gone. I imagine more will join deadlydynasty in the search for a new team.
Gotcha!!!
lmvictoriousao!!!
"happy" & "relief" got nary to do with a Championship run. You're the latest & most profound confirmation of that.
Safe to say, Howard will be happy as a clam.
lol, who you trying to convince? Yourself?
To be honest I have to defend Laker fans here. They're not going to be done, it will take 4-5 years but after Kirby retires they'll be right back at it, heck, Kirby could be a servicable 3rd string SG off the bench on a championship team, but that's it.
I think the Lakers will land Kevin Love in 2015 if their 2014 plan doesn't work and they have the space and they'll have a few other decent players so they won't be as bad as some people think but yeah, they will suck in 2013,2014,2015 and perhaps 2016, it won't be a quick fix unless Pau and Steve Nash start playing like they did 3 years ago and Kirby passes the ball.
"The Lakers have always done it. So why can’t they just do it again?" Simple. Because no good players are willing to let Bryant coattail them like he did with Shaquille and Gasol.
Which is why the Lakers will not be back until Bryant retires.
[QUOTE=AchillesHeel;6792103]To be honest I have to defend Laker fans here. They're not going to be done, it will take 4-5 years but after Kirby retires they'll be right back at it, heck, Kirby could be a servicable 3rd string SG off the bench on a championship team, but that's it.
I think the Lakers will land Kevin Love in 2015 if their 2014 plan doesn't work and they have the space and they'll have a few other decent players so they won't be as bad as some people think but yeah, they will suck in 2013,2014,2015 and perhaps 2016, it won't be a quick fix unless Pau and Steve Nash start playing like they did 3 years ago and Kirby passes the ball.[/QUOTE] Like this will ever happen.
Which is why I'm saying that the Lakers will not be relevant until Kirby retires, that's in about 3-4 years as he's more and more confident about playing past this year.
This is just 6 talking.
Lakers with Kobe past 3 years
2 playoff sweeps, one win in the 2nd round
Its like this that lets me know most of you spurs fans are idiots. You say this because of what you see now. What THE has your organization done outside of the Duncan era in the last 46 Years? The lakers have been WINNING Since before RC Buford was born. Sit down child. You act as if the spurs has some bright future. Last year was your last shot. DEAL WITH IT....
Lakers with Kobe the last 6 years
3 Finals, 2 Championships, 1-1 vs the Spurs.
Spurs in the last 6 years
2 First round exits to 8th seeds, 1 WCF ass whooping to the Lake Show, and 6
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
