- 11,439
- 18,511
I agree with all of this. The allure of playing for the Lakers still exists. The Lakers are an attractive destination for free agents. But ultimately they have to have their stuff in order organization wise to maximize and utilize this. Look at Shaq in 1996. That was a 53 win team who was a lot better than where they were when they bottomed out in 1994. Yeah all the opportunities and perks which come with playing in LA and being the man on the Lakers likely helped land him. But he was ultimately coming to a good team.
Even with the Lebron situation, while yeah he was going to a 35 win team in a move which was largely influenced by off the court interests. He was going to a team which had a bunch of young talent who would either blossom under Lebron or end up being used as tradable assets to land another star player which ended up happening.
That said, aside from loading up on picks, the Lakers strategy from after Dwight left until Lebron came was very questionable. All types of roster turnover and dumb signings while milking Kobes last few seasons. I get stockpiling picks, but you gotta have some type of stability and veterans around them and aside from Kobe, those teams lacked that.
And I cringe at them likely overpaying for someone beyond their prime or who isn’t in that superstar tier. If they rebuild right, top talent will want to come because of the on court product, the perks of being the man on the Lakers are the icing on the cake. But knowing the Lakers and their fixation of having to have a star on the team at any cost, they’ll likely do something impatient and impulsive. All that said, my bad for the rant reply to your initial comment. But you were spot on accurate.
