FanPost

Do the Lakers really have a free agency issue?

The Los Angeles Lakers are often described as a team inclined to luring free agents, splashing money out to build championships.

Is this credence true? Do the Lakers actually have a history of winning by throwing money left and right and recruiting big free agents?

A bit of NBA history comes handy in dismissing this myth: Los Angeles enticed only one first class superstar in free agency: Shaquille O'Neal.

Shaq arrived in California at 24, in 1996, mostly attracted by the chance of exploring his extracurricular activities (rap music, and cinema, what did you think?), and, of course, by a conspicuous sum of money. Jerry West went as far as gambling Vlade Divac in exchange for a high schooler (back then, few doubted Kobe Bryant's potential, but picking him was nonetheless considered a big risk).

He cleared cap-space and build a young team filled with drafted players (such as Derek Fisher, Nick Van Exel, Eddie Jones), traded for (like Robert Horry), or signed on the free agency, like Rick Fox (who accepted a contract below his value in order to pursue his parallel acting career).

Along the years, Los Angeles captured other great free agents, but they never really splashed money out the same way they did with Shaq. In 2003, they signed Gary Payton and Karl Malone at bargain price (given their will to chase an ever eluding championship). In 2009, they signed Ron Artest with the MLE, because they wanted a cheaper small forward than Trevor Ariza.

Back in the sixties, Los Angeles' core was strong of the likes of Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and Gail Goodrich, all drafted by the Lakers, and their presence was instrumental in landing Wilt Chamberlain. The Big Dipper forced a trade when Philadelphia's coach, Alex Hannum, left for the ABA. Lakers' owner Jack Kent Cooke rewarded the center with a rich contract, worth 250.000 dollars, but Chamberlain longed for L.A. before knowing how much money he would make; his desire was to shine in front of the Hollywood stars.

The Eighties team, defined by the "Showtime" brand, was built around draft and trades: Kareem arrived in town because (like Wilt) he sought a more cosmopolitan city than Milwaukee to live in, and Los Angeles traded for him. Money wasn't the issue, not as much as southern California lifestyle.

Then again, how many players left great teams just to sunbathe in Santa Monica or Venice Beach? None. Other than good weather and the Ocean, the Lakers brand bears promise of competence and competitiveness.

In 1979, the Lakers drafted Magic Johnson, and in the following years they drafted James Worthy, A.C. Green, Michael Cooper, traded Norm Nixon to San Diego for Byron Scott, and picked Kurt Rambis from AEK Athens; the Showtime had nothing to do with free agency.

As I wrote before, only one major superstar moved to L.A through free agency; hardly a consistent trend or pattern. In the sabermetrics time we live in, it's somehow weird that columnists keep repeating such an evident fallacy. I mean, hasn't anyone noticed? An info-graphic, anyone?

Talking about graphics and stats, reminds me of LaMarcus Aldridge reportedly declining the Lakers' offer because he disliked their basketball presentation; I've been following the NBA for almost 20 years, and I still haven't figured out the use of b-ball presentations. I don't want to sound ironic, nor patronizing, but do you need pictures and graphics to grasp what is going to happen if you join a roster? Can't you, like, use you're extensive expertise, and figure it out?

Kobe Bryant reportedly spoke for about three minutes, simply saying he envisioned Aldridge in a Pau Gasol role; it seems very clear to me, and LaMarcus can either dig it or not, but there's no "clarity" issue here.

No, I don't really think the presentation was a problem, and I don't believe the rejection had to do with Aldridge's feel for Kobe (they have known each other for a decade, and LaMarcus considered the Lakers a top-destination; you want me to believe that three minutes of "you can be a-Pau Gasol-type of player" ruined it all?).

Frankly, I was surprised L.A. was considered in the first place.

LaMarcus is approaching thirty, an age when NBA stars cannot wait for Russell and Randle to become fellow All Stars.

He already has Damian Lillard in Portland; if he leaves Oregon, it should be for a better situation, and both San Antonio and Dallas provid a better fit than the young, unproven Lakers (also, Texas has lower taxes, which doesn't hurt). If anything, his interest in Los Angeles is a testament to the power of the brand.

The Lakers aren't experiencing any free agent drought; simply put, the new CBA makes it difficult for players to leave their teams, no matter the destination: if LaMarcus Aldridge says goodbye to Portland, he'll leave 28 millions on the table, no matter where he lands.

This system crippled any economic advantage the Lakers might have had, but they still get to spend the "welcome to Los Angeles" card. Yes, the planet is hyper-connected, and you can be a worldwide star even if you play basketball in a small market, but living in California still beats living in most places.

This CBA's supposed goal is to cut costs, and increase small-market competitiveness, limiting the spending-power of the big city franchises, namely the Bulls, Lakers, and Knicks. Sounds good, but how many household free agents did those teams sign, say, in the last 30 years? The two best signings of Chicago are arguably Carlos Boozer and Pau Gasol. The Knicks? Probably Amare Stoudemire, and I can't think of a second name; maybe John Starks, but he was playing with the Cedar Rapids Silver Bullets and wasn't exactly submerged in offers.

This CBA is actually designed to help owners avoid catastrophic salary disasters like the Dolan's, Prokhorov's, or Paul Allen's; it has the pleasant side effect of deeply rooting players with a franchise, but this has moderate impact on how the Lakers operate. After all, out of the nine jerseys hanging from the Staples Center's rafters, five belong to players drafted by the Lakers.

The latest Lakers team to win a championship, in 2010, had Kobe, Pau and Lamar Odom (all acquired through trades), Bynum, Vujacic, Farmar, Walton (drafted, none higher than tenth pick overall), Fisher (mid-level). Dan Gilbert's Cavaliers had 4 first overall picks in the last 12 years (including the likes of LeBron James and Kyrie Irving), and they are still looking for their first championship, despite a lot of luck with the Lottery, and a lot of money spent on contracts.

What now for the Lakers?

Latest news is that Gregg Monroe will sign with the Milwaukee Bucks, so the only big man still on the market is DeAndre Jordan, and, quite frankly, Lakers' chances of landing him are pretty thin at best.
Is this a bad thing? Even if they end up empty handed, the Lakers have a youthful, interesting core in Jordan Clarkson, D'Angelo Russell, and Julius Randle. Give them a season to properly develop, and L.A. will become a yearned destination.