Shogon
06-28-2019, 10:55 AM
It wouldn't surprise me at all if signing Kawhi is not the most optimal move the Lakers can make this offseason, despite him clearly being the best free agent (KD hurt doesn't count)...
Kawhi can hit the three, and he's an amazing defender, but what about ego? What about team depth? What about the fact that he likes to hold the ball a lot?
Teams are greater than the sum of their parts. You can only have so many stars on one team before it yields diminishing results in which said extra star players would not be as good for a team as much as lesser players that are 'specialists' would be. We have proof this is true... perfect example is the 2016 Warriors vs 2017 Warriors. Title aside, and I don't want to get into the same repetitive argument because ultimately the Cavs were dead in the water prior to Draymond's emotional retardation suspension, the 2017 Warriors won less games in than the 2016 Warriors despite the fact that they added arguably the best player in the game to their roster. Save the "the Warriors didn't feel like gunning for 73 again" argument, because they still tried to win games. They won 67. They got worse, if only marginally.
Why? Why is that the case? How could a team add arguably the best player in the league to their roster and actually get worse or be roughly the same?
Because teams are greater than the sum of their parts.
Players having roles is important.
We know LeBron likes to control the ball a lot. AD is going to need his touches. Do the Lakers really have room for a third guy that needs the ball to be his most effective self? I don't for a second believe that to be the case.
Here's my "proof" that what I'm saying is "true..."
Who's a better player? Kawhi or Klay? No rational person is going to say that Klay is a better basketball player than Kawhi. Nobody. Not a single soul. NO ONE.
That being said, would Klay not be a better fit for LeBron and AD? Does anyone really believe he wouldn't? He's a comparable defender to Kawhi, though Kawhi gets the nod. But he's definitely a better shooter. And he needs the ball less.
So that's a pretty clear cut prime example of a lesser player being a better fit for certain situations.
So with all that said... what should the Lakers do with their 32 million?
Sign 3 solid players. Or 2 really solid players and a bench that consists of a tiny bit more than just minimum contracts.
Something like... Beverly, Lopez, etc... might actually work better than Kawhi, despite Kawhi being a worlds better player.
I'm open to being wrong, I've been wrong before many times but... I genuinely thought LeBron's title chances were completely gone once he joined the Lakers, but they pulled a rabbit out of their asses...
It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out, but I don't think the Lakers should max ANY single guy out that is a free agent... except maybe Klay Thompson (who isn't leaving by all indications.)
Hell... look at the Raptors... really, they only have one true STAR player remaining... and a bunch of has been stars or clearly second or third tier players... and they just won the title. Teams are greater than the sum of their parts.
Kawhi can hit the three, and he's an amazing defender, but what about ego? What about team depth? What about the fact that he likes to hold the ball a lot?
Teams are greater than the sum of their parts. You can only have so many stars on one team before it yields diminishing results in which said extra star players would not be as good for a team as much as lesser players that are 'specialists' would be. We have proof this is true... perfect example is the 2016 Warriors vs 2017 Warriors. Title aside, and I don't want to get into the same repetitive argument because ultimately the Cavs were dead in the water prior to Draymond's emotional retardation suspension, the 2017 Warriors won less games in than the 2016 Warriors despite the fact that they added arguably the best player in the game to their roster. Save the "the Warriors didn't feel like gunning for 73 again" argument, because they still tried to win games. They won 67. They got worse, if only marginally.
Why? Why is that the case? How could a team add arguably the best player in the league to their roster and actually get worse or be roughly the same?
Because teams are greater than the sum of their parts.
Players having roles is important.
We know LeBron likes to control the ball a lot. AD is going to need his touches. Do the Lakers really have room for a third guy that needs the ball to be his most effective self? I don't for a second believe that to be the case.
Here's my "proof" that what I'm saying is "true..."
Who's a better player? Kawhi or Klay? No rational person is going to say that Klay is a better basketball player than Kawhi. Nobody. Not a single soul. NO ONE.
That being said, would Klay not be a better fit for LeBron and AD? Does anyone really believe he wouldn't? He's a comparable defender to Kawhi, though Kawhi gets the nod. But he's definitely a better shooter. And he needs the ball less.
So that's a pretty clear cut prime example of a lesser player being a better fit for certain situations.
So with all that said... what should the Lakers do with their 32 million?
Sign 3 solid players. Or 2 really solid players and a bench that consists of a tiny bit more than just minimum contracts.
Something like... Beverly, Lopez, etc... might actually work better than Kawhi, despite Kawhi being a worlds better player.
I'm open to being wrong, I've been wrong before many times but... I genuinely thought LeBron's title chances were completely gone once he joined the Lakers, but they pulled a rabbit out of their asses...
It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out, but I don't think the Lakers should max ANY single guy out that is a free agent... except maybe Klay Thompson (who isn't leaving by all indications.)
Hell... look at the Raptors... really, they only have one true STAR player remaining... and a bunch of has been stars or clearly second or third tier players... and they just won the title. Teams are greater than the sum of their parts.