LeBron James Discussion: Not Returning To The Lakers

Everyone probably does not include the majority of NBA media, the Oklahoma City Thunder, nor the general fans. That probably includes everyone on this site and I'd love for George to agree with us.

 

When did I say you were ignoring my points? I also didn't ignore yours. I'm saying your points are as a (understandably and relatably) biased Laker fan. I don't believe the majority of NBA fans view the Lakers as a better team for George than Oklahoma. I'd love to be wrong, but I don't see it. I'm not sure I see much evidence to the contrary either.

 

I’ve still never seen an argument that trumps my problems with getting LLLLLabron.

Setting my hate aside... if he takes a max years/money contract, he will take up a ton of cap room and be around 37 on his last year (and you know he will have a no trade clause). If he goes for a year by year contract, he will be trying to control personnel moves to win before he declines much more, and I want no part of setting fire to the team’s future “to win now” attitude I’m sure he will be leveraging. It takes time for a team to gel and win a championship, so we’re probably talking Labron at 35yo being the most likely time we start to have a good chance of winning and we’re supposed to hope a 35yo Labron with a ton of playoff mialage doesn’t get a significant injury in this time frame?.... no.

All that adds up to making a championship unlikely without a lot more help and without giving up our core because teams win championships when they have players with cheap contracts that play above their pay grade... which we have locked in right now. LLLLLabron will try to gut this team to win in the moment if he signs a year by year contract. We’re already hearing rumblings about him installing another coach and he isn’t even here yet.

I still have yet to see an argument that convinces me the above isn’t the most likely results of signing him. No to any of that

 

I haven't argued against this much, but to me what you're describing is better than the likely alternative of paying massive amounts to players that don't deserve that money. If we don't spend that money on LeBron, we spend it on who? Lopez? Thomas? We're even less likely to win a title with them as the main pieces than we are with LeBron.

I have never argued that LeBron after 2 years will likely outlive the usefulness of his contract on the court. In 2 years, he's likely slower, less explosive, and his defense is likely not great. He would still be a VERY good player, but worth 37 million? Questionable. Still, if we get LeBron and we get George, then... what exactly does it matter if he's expensive two years from now?

We all agree: even adding LeBron/George to this core while losing no major young pieces is unlikely to result in a title in the first two years. Okay, so it stands to reason that not having LeBron would be worse considering he's extremely talented. So where does our money go instead? Do we keep wrapping it around and waiting for a different FA? Why would we pick a different FA over LeBron James? There's only two names that really are comparable and they're not likely to leave their teams: Durant and Kawhi. Kawhi had that drama during the year, but he's now got some physical and mental issues. If he checks out, then I'm 100% okay with trying to go after him... but what if that doesn't work? Now we're looking at rolling over cash again or doubling down on players who are again not really worth the money (Thomas/Lopez/Pope).There's not really a better way to spend our money than using it on LeBron. I mean push come to shove, we can be like Houston and figure out ways to clear space to acquire guys like Kawhi when the time comes. It's better to invest now so we can compete now than it is to save this money for someone else or worse get caught with nobody and then having to pay the kids without anyone else joining them.

This summer is our best shot to hit two home runs. After this, the odds get longer. We likely lose our 2nd max slot to Julius's contract. In two years we've got to pay Ingram. We lose the opportunity to add pieces.

In three years, even with a LeBron that's declining, so what? You've got George, you've got the kids, that's what people want right now anyway. I'd rather have an expensive LeBron than nothing. Unless we can guarantee that Klay or Kawhi or Curry or Durant is coming, LeBron is the best bet.

And that's not counting the financial boon, the prestige brought back to the team, and all the off-court benefits the Lakers would get in just one summer. Hell the hype might be strong enough to drive the Clippers out of the Staples Center.

 

I'm admittedly as much of a Homer as this guy:




But I'll go with LT on this one. I think we have a better team to offer PG than OKC does. Our respective records since the break demonstrate the point.

OKC = Ballhog Westbrook / Ballhog Aging Melo / Adams / Roberson

Lakers = Zo who gets you the ball every time where you like it / Slenderman / Raging Bull Randle / Kuuuuuuuz / Hart

Over the next 5 years who would fit better with PG? I'll take the #1 Pace team in the NBA who also are willing to get after it on D. Not to mention Luke over Donavan. Not to mention Los Angeles over OKC as a home.

 

So you stopped reading my post, that means I stopped reading yours? I don't remember saying that and I didn't stop reading your post. I read it all the way through and I don't agree with it. Your arguments are from a Laker-centric perspective. My arguments are from an outside perspective. Not many people in the NBA media, the NBA circles, etc. will argue that our Laker team is better suited for George to win a ring than the OKC Thunder.

When Paul George is in his FA meetings, the Thunder will point out who went to the playoffs and who didn't, they'll offer more money, they'll have Westbrook there in the meeting for solidarity, they'll talk about how they easily have beaten up on the Warriors twice, and how they just need time to gel. They'll say they'll spend whatever they need to so that they can field a champion. They'll point to how they pulled out acquisitions of Carmelo and George himself in order to turn their team around and compete right away. It's a good pitch.

I'll keep saying it because it's important to start from that point: Nostalgia is our best argument right now. Nostalgia shouldn't be the best argument which is why we need to be competitive now and why it was vital to free up a second max slot. The Lakers certainly agree with that perspective or they wouldn't have traded two solid young assets from a rebuilding team. Right now, the Lakers are worse than the Thunder. With two full max slots, we have a chance to change that.

 

I'd love for this to be the way George sees it. I see it this way too.

From a business perspective, do you think it's a good idea to assume George sees it this way? The Lakers aren't satisfied that George sees it this way or they wouldn't have fought for the extra max slot.

I've said it a dozen times every week: if we can just add George, I'd be ecstatic. We'd be a playoff team. I don't think that's likely though which is why the second max (namely LeBron) is so important.

 

I have no idea how these guys think. I'm guessing all the best NBA players are currently enamored with the Heat model of "let's all team up in such and such a city". So, I would expect PG to be angling for a sure thing kind of pairing with LeBron. That's why I'm pretty confident we are the chosen destination. Cavs cant do that. Sixers can't do that. OKC can't compete with that. Houston is the snake in the grass with the Banana Boat option. I still give us the edge what with the big recent real estate investment.

 

Do you know what I'm arguing? I've never wavered from this point today: what you're arguing is from a LAKER perspective and a LAKER FAN perspective. I am a Laker fan, so I of course I am sympathetic with your argument. I just don't believe we can count on that way of thinking. Neither do the Lakers.

Why do you have to try to take little shots by the way? I've been nothing but polite with you. You always bring up me never admitting when I'm wrong, which I've dis-proven already. No need to get salty, this is just a discussion.

 

I agree with this. I've been saying that freeing up the second slot raised our chances by a solid amount because if we can convince one, we likely can convince the other. But the second free slot was vital to that and the Lakers think so too otherwise they wouldn't have made the moves they made.

They're also very confident then can get both which is good to see. I think there's significant smoke blowing our way, but the ability to pay two guys is going to be a huge factor in this.

 

Again, you're talking about this from a Laker and Laker fan perspective. The system argument, the personable coach, the roster. There's counters to all of that: maybe he likes the simplistic offense from the Thunder. Heck he's already said he likes playing with a superstar like Russell who commands all that attention. Maybe he's more comfortable there. The coach argument, I mean do you know if he has a bad relationship with Donovan? Donovan seems like a pretty personable guy. I haven't heard that he's a hard*** or that his players don't like him. Maybe he and Billy Donovan are close. If I recall correctly, Billy went on Paul's fishing trip up in Castaic. The roster, we're a roster of young pups in their 20s who are very talented, but need seasoning. Maybe he prefers the more ready-made team in Oklahoma. Our roster also doesn't feature anyone as good as Westbrook and as long as Westbrook is playing, he's a force that can work well with George.

There's no need to call what I'm saying ridiculous. It not. It's looking at things from a perspective that isn't your own. I have never said George isn't a smart guy and I'm sure the Laker pitch will sound great. I'd love if he signed here by himself and we went forward with him as the guy. I don't see that as particularly likely. Hell Paul George said he would really only consider the Lakers if it was with other people (I think he called it an avalanche).

The number one argument is nostalgia. The other arguments are still valid, but the one that will trump pro-OKC arguments is playing in LA, being close to family, legacy, etc. The on-the-court arguments are not necessarily in the Lakers' favor. It's evident in Westbrook as his teammate, it's evident in the OKC record, and it's evident in the Lakers' willingness to get a second max slot because just George was probably not enough.

 

If I said "the only argument" that's not what I meant. I said the "number one argument" as in: the one that holds the most weight. I'm pretty sure I said "best" and "number one" argument, if I ever said "only" then I apologize because that's not what I meant.

The nostalgia factor is what we as Laker fans are relying on if we're just talking to Paul by himself because there's arguments (very valid ones) that the OKC situation is better for him as a competitor. It has nothing to do with a false narrative either, it could just be the way he sees it. He could really like OKC. He could value the extra year of cash for his family. He could love Westbrook. Those are all completely valid reasons to stay. As a Laker fan I'll still be blown away that he chose those things over being the man in LA and playing in front of friends and family and taking up the Kobe legacy, etc. but it's still very possible that our ability to appeal to his sensibilities are not enough of a factor to beat what the OKC Thunder offer him. That's why the second max is so important and why I place value in LeBron. LeBron is an engine to a massive jump to me that vitally includes Paul George because I think those two come hand in hand this summer.

And I don't try to make you feel dumb for you opinions, that's never my intent. You know that man, we're pals. I'm just not as convinced that the Lakers can grab Paul George based only on the court product. I hope he sees it different.

 

No, Lebron I would just say you got lucky. Now you can say great players make their own luck and I would be okay with that. But don't say haters would call it fake. It happened on Live TV its not fake, just lucky.