5-on-5: Should the Lakers trade for Paul George this offseason?
What's the best trade the Lakers could make for Paul George? Will D'Angelo Russell and Brandon Ingram be on their next playoff team?
Our 5-on-5 crew debates and predicts L.A.'s next moves.
1. Should the Lakers trade for Paul George? If so, what trade would make sense?
Ramona Shelburne, ESPN.com: Yes. I know the Lakers got burned by trading for a guy with one year left on his deal (Dwight Howard in 2012). I also know that there's a strong -- and, I believe, well-founded -- view that George will sign with the Lakers as a free agent after next season.
Still, if another team trades for him this summer, he could fall in love with that franchise, and I don't think the Lakers can take that chance. For example, what if the Celtics make the move and George is the piece that gets them past the Cavs in the Eastern Conference? I don't think the Lakers can take that chance. To get George, I'd give up two of their top young guys and the first-round pick they got from Houston in the Lou Williams trade.
Baxter Holmes, ESPN.com: As the Lakers have learned, acquiring big-time free agents is much harder than expected. So I think they should trade for him rather than risk losing out on signing him. The Pacers would probably ask for Brandon Ingram and perhaps at least two or three other promising young players, as well as a draft pick. It might seem like a steep cost, but stars such as George don't come along every day -- and if he arrives in L.A., there's a chance other stars will follow. That fact alone makes him worth the price.
Bradford Doolittle, ESPN Insider: Tough call, but I'd say no. Let's see how Ingram develops, and whether another year in coach Luke Walton's system improves the efficiency of D'Angelo Russell, Jordan Clarkson and Julius Randle. If the long-whispered rumors about George's hell-bent desire to become a Laker turn out to be true, then wait it out. If the Pacers are still nowhere at the end of next season, the Lakers can lure George with a max deal, emerging talent to build with, and the riches of L.A. to make up the disparity between their max offer and the better one Indiana can make.
Jeremias Engelmann, ESPN Insider: I think they should, given that George appears to be forcing his way out of Indiana and thus should have a lower price tag. Unfortunately, the Lakers owe one future first-round pick to Philly and another to Orlando if their 2017 pick falls outside the top three. Given that, it's tough to envision a package that Indiana would like.
Kevin Pelton, ESPN Insider: There's value in trading for George now, mainly to avoid the possibility that he makes All-NBA next season and thus qualifies to re-sign with the Pacers for the designated veteran maximum. That's more of a motivator than simply having George in L.A. a year early. Given my skepticism of Ingram's and Randle's potential, I'd be willing to offer either for George, but not Russell, and certainly not this year's first-round pick if it lands in the top three and stays with the Lakers.
2. What should the Lakers do with Timofey Mozgov and Luol Deng?
Note: They are owed a combined $102 million over the next three seasons.
Doolittle: I view Mozgov as a sunk cost. You can't trade an average center with that contract just to open up salary. The Lakers can use him next year as a part-time pivot while giving Ivica Zubac the breathing space to develop. You can stretch Mozgov, but that option is more palatable next year.
It seems clear that Deng's future value lies in playing the 4, but the Lakers are a poor fit for him in that regard. If Randle isn't the Lakers' power forward of the future, then Larry Nance Jr. surely is. Both need minutes. A lot of contending teams would love to have Deng for a rotation role and for his locker room leadership. But that contract ... that's what happens when you splurge for poor-value deals. While Deng is better than Mozgov, their situation is the same, and the Lakers will probably have to end up stretching him next year to free up cap space.
Holmes: I have a hard time envisioning a scenario in which the Lakers could trade these guys, regardless of whatever "sweeteners" might be thrown into the deal. There's no great option, which speaks to how bad these deals are. If the Lakers are desperate for cap relief, waiving them and stretching their deals would help there.
Shelburne: I'd keep them for now unless the Lakers believe they can land two big free agents on the market this summer and need the cap space. They'd have to attach a good young player to get rid of one of their contracts, and the Lakers need all the young assets they can get. It'll be easier to waive and stretch them after next season, too, with fewer dollars and one year less left on the contracts.
Pelton: Nothing. There's too much guaranteed money left on their contracts and too little incentive to clear additional cap space this summer. The Lakers will need that space in the summer of 2018, when George can become a free agent and Deng and Mozgov will be halfway through their contracts. At that point, the Lakers can gauge how much they'd have to trade to shed their salaries or consider waiving and stretching one or both.
Engelmann: I have no problems with keeping Deng. He is a bit overpaid, but he's a good locker room presence. Mozgov, though, was the NBA's fifth-worst center, according to real plus-minus (RPM). He's also severely overpaid, making $16 million per season through 2019-20. I'd waive and stretch him.
3. What else do you foresee and advise for the Lakers this offseason?
Pelton: Barring a George trade or interest from star free agents in their prime (Blake Griffin or Gordon Hayward), I'd stay the course. Trying to re-sign Nick Young to a more lucrative one-year deal if he opts out makes sense, and the Lakers should be looking at young free agents on modest, make-good deals. I'd also hold the line on an extension for Randle, since even if he breaks through next season he'll have a manageable cap hold as a restricted free agent in the summer of 2018.
Engelmann: The Lakers are between a rock and a hard place -- a situation almost as dire as Brooklyn's. They have a roster that wins a paltry 25 games or so, but because of past trades, they might not even get a high draft pick. None of their young players looks like a surefire star, either. It's time to move just about everyone -- perhaps excluding Ingram and Russell -- for draft picks.
Shelburne: I don't think they will extend Randle this summer. Why tie up cap space even more for the free-agent summer in two years? Randle had a nice season, but at this point there's very little risk that he'd leave in restricted free agency or land a max deal they'd have to match.
Holmes: On the organizational side, they need to develop their training staff and analytics team, having lost key staffers in both departments. Top-tier teams tend to be strong in those areas, and we'll see if the Lakers can move in that direction.
In terms of the roster, signing Randle to an extension should be a no-brainer. If Young opts out, I think you let him join a contender, as he stated is a priority during his exit interviews.
Doolittle: Everything hinges on the draft lottery. If the Lakers hit the jackpot and land Lonzo Ball, then they're building a different kind of team than one that is playing out the season in hopes of attracting George. There's no rush to make a decision on Randle, who should have good trade value even if he's extended -- perhaps even more. Beyond that, the Lakers have to remain patient. Not an easy thing for that franchise, I know.
4. Which current players will be part of the Lakers' next playoff team?
Holmes: Man, this is a tough one, given how young the core is and how far the Lakers are from contending. At the moment, I envision Ingram being on the Lakers' next playoff team. Perhaps Randle and Nance will be there, too. In the draft, they might be able to enhance their backcourt, which makes me wonder what becomes of Russell and Clarkson. One thing is certain: Any of the Lakers' young players are fair game to be moved.
Doolittle: Russell, Nance, Ingram, Clarkson and Zubac. Ultimately, I see Nance becoming a better fit at 4 than Randle, because the Lakers will need high-quality defenders to augment their emerging firepower. That's especially true if they land Ball.
Pelton: Ingram seems the most likely bet. Russell appears to have lost the trust of management, and Randle could be vulnerable as he's in line for a big raise coming off his rookie contract. I actually might put Zubac ahead of both of them given his age and cheap salary, and Nance ahead of them as well. Clarkson may also remain more valuable to the Lakers than he would be in trades. Beyond them, it's a crapshoot.
Engelmann: It's very likely the answer is zero. I have little hope that Randle will become an above-average NBA player -- he sported an RPM of minus-1.8 in his third season. Only Ingram and Russell are somewhat likely to still be there when the Lakers return to the playoffs, which might not happen before, let's say, 2022.
Shelburne: I think they'd really like to hold on to Ingram and Zubac. Nance and David Nwaba are nice young role players who fit with the style Walton wants to play. Everyone else still has something to prove.
5. How many playoff appearances will the Lakers make in the next five seasons?
Shelburne: I'll say two. This feels like a two- to three-year rebuild, but you get the sense there's some momentum back in El Segundo these days. I expect the Lakers to be very active this summer. They've been way too conservative the past five years. Magic Johnson and Rob Pelinka want to push the pace.
Doolittle: Four. After one more year of growing pains, I think the Lakers will begin a steady climb back to prominence. I really like organizational changes that have happened. Johnson benefited from his experience with the Dodgers, I suspect. Pelinka should be a cutting-edge GM. The ownership situation seems sorted out, and Walton should be a fixture at coach. Best of all, the Lakers have young talent, and there is no better currency in building an NBA team.
Holmes: Two on the back end, if they're able to make the right moves by acquiring a star (or two) while building out the rest of the roster. It takes only one huge move to turn a team into a contender, and the Lakers have historically been as likely as anyone to make such moves.
But the past four seasons have proved that "Laker exceptionalism" is dead and the team is mortal. The Lakers always swing for the fences, but they could stand to hit a few singles and doubles as they try to emerge from rebuilding status.
Engelmann: I'd put the over/under at 0.5. Their current roster isn't good, they owe (likely) two future first-round picks, and Johnson has very little experience. Among the players he has hyped up (via Twitter) are several RPM bottom-feeders, including Jahlil Okafor, Jimmer Fredette and Brandon Knight.
Pelton: I would put the line at 2.5. Next summer will be an important dividing line for the Lakers. If the development of their young players stalls and George remains in Indiana, we could see more short-sighted veteran signings along the lines of Deng and Mozgov that would keep the Lakers in the lottery for the foreseeable future. But it's entirely possible that the Lakers could build a playoff team around George by the 2018-19 season and easily hit the over.
