In the opening hours of free agency, the Lakers made news by reportedly reaching agreements with free agent center Timofey Mozgov and Jordan Clarkson (to return) on four-year contracts.
Will the Mozgov move work well for the Lakers?
And what kinds of moves should the Lakers be making? Our NBA Insiders debate the future of the Lakers.
1. What do you foresee and advise for the Lakers this offseason?
Amin Elhassan, ESPN Insider: Slow and steady wins the race. Instead of moping about the "snub" of not receiving the gift of a meeting with Kevin Durant, the Lakers should go after free agents they have a chance of convincing to sign -- young vets who will help move the culture forward. The idea isn't to have guys who will play ahead of their young guns, but guys who can help bring them along and develop.
Baxter Holmes, ESPN.com: I'd stress targeting veteran free agents that can bring leadership and good habits to a locker room comprised of promising players -- D'Angelo Russell, Julius Randle, Brandon Ingram, Larry Nance Jr., Jordan Clarkson -- that are 24 years old or younger. I fully expect that to happen, as the Lakers have openly admitted it's a priority.
Beyond that, Luke Walton needs to finalize his coaching staff and begin implementing his culture. The Lakers likely won't sign any stars this summer, and that's okay. Heck, it's the new normal. But right now, baby steps are more than okay for a team that won just 17 games last season, so focus on developing in-house talent and putting the right pieces around it.
Jeremias Engelmann, ESPN Insider: The Lakers will either lose their first pick to Philadelphia if it falls outside the top three and with it a 2019 unprotected first to Orlando or a 2018 unprotected first to Philadelphia.
Given all that, I think the best strategy is to lose games this coming season, which shouldn't be too hard, really, and then attack the free agent market, hard, in the summer of 2017.
Bradford Doolittle, ESPN Insider: The Lakers are the Lakers and, as such, can pitch any upper-tier free agent who will sit down with them even though they just won 17 games. When those pitches inevitably fail, they need to turn to under-30 free agents with a strong defensive profile.
D'Angelo Russell, Julius Randle, Jordan Clarkson and Brandon Ingram need to take their lumps on the offensive end so at least Mitch Kupchak can lighten their defensive responsibilities. It's all about setting themselves up for 2017.
Kevin Pelton, ESPN Insider: With Kevin Durant off the table, I would've made Hassan Whiteside my No. 1 priority. Whiteside is the only player besides Durant I'd be comfortable paying max money to going forward given the impact on the Lakers' cap space for the more star-studded summer of 2017. Beyond that, I'd be looking at dealing for players in the last year of their contract or overpaying players on one-year deals to stay respectable while keeping an eye on 2017.
We'll see if the Lakers are that disciplined given the potential pressure on Jim Buss and Mitch Kupchak to win now based on possible interpretations of Buss' timeline for returning the team to competitiveness in the Western Conference.
2. Who are the core Lakers for the long term?
Elhassan: Ingram and Russell for sure. Clarkson and Randle are nice pieces for the here and now, but certainly more expendable.
Russell's size, feel and shooting stroke all give him a chance to be special (if he matures) and Ingram has the potential to be a game-changing talent with his length and shooting. In a way, those two players epitomize what the future of the NBA looks like: really long and really good shooting.
Holmes: I mentioned the core above -- Russell, Randle, Ingram, Nance Jr. and Clarkson, though the Lakers aren't married to those guys if the right deal came along, say for an established All-Star. Each of those players has shown enough promise to earn a spot going forward -- and that's when Byron Scott was coaching the team. With Walton at the helm, player development should be much better, along with the culture, especially for these younger players.
Engelmann: I don't have the highest hopes for Julius Randle (Real Plus-Minus of -4.3), who last season recorded the 14th worst raw plus-minus rating, per 100 possessions, since 2001. This is not a case where a physically gifted player just needs to adapt and find his role, as Randle is actually kind of undersized. So I consider D'Angelo Russell and Brandon Ingram the only keepers.
Doolittle: It's got to be the high lottery guys in Ingram, Russell and Randle. Franchise players declare themselves as such within four NBA seasons, so there is no time to waste in proving the Lakers didn't miss with those picks. If the Lakers overachieve next season, and it's because of that trio, they'll look a lot better to 2017 free agents.
Pelton: Brandon Ingram and D'Angelo Russell for sure. I think Jordan Clarkson belongs because of the favorable way the Gilbert Arenas provision of the CBA limits his salary the next two seasons and because his improvement as a 3-point shooter allows him to play with a ball-dominant point guard. I'm a bit more skeptical with Julius Randle, who was an elite rebounder but inefficient offensively as a rookie.
3. Which is most true?
A. The Lakers are still on the short list of best destinations.
B. They are no longer on the short list of best destinations.
C. It's case-by-case, but things have changed.
D. They are no longer on the list, but soon will be again.
Elhassan: D. Look, L.A. has a lot of good things going for it. Great weather. Lots of off-court earning potential. Celebrities everywhere. But the modern NBA free agent (particularly on the marquee end) is interested in one thing (other than money), and that's opportunity to win at the highest level.
Being a Laker just for the sake of being in L.A. doesn't have the appeal it once did, and as long as the Lakers continue to struggle on the court, they'll struggle to attract the big names.
Holmes: C. They still reside in Los Angeles and their brand, history, marketing and Hollywood connections do resonate on some level, perhaps with players who hail from Southern California. But, clearly, all those factors and their overall allure aren't what they used to be. Things have changed. More players seem to care more about the on-court product, and, at the moment, the Lakers don't have much to sell there, which is why, in part, they keep missing out on stars.
Yes, the latest CBA and social media/technology have limited the power big markets once held over small markets, which has affected the Lakers. But have the Lakers woken up to the new reality? Or are they still stuck in the past? It's not clear. Who can blame Kevin Durant for not wanting to meet with the Lakers? He wants to win right now, and the Lakers aren't in position to do that.
Engelmann: C. I don't think the Lakers are significantly more appealing to free agents that are average-to-decent. But they should still appeal to the big superstars, especially to the more extroverted ones who might enjoy starring in movies, or generally enjoy being in the spotlight -- the Shaq types.
Doolittle: C. Becoming a featured player on a winning team is a player's best marketing position. While there are still benefits to playing in a glitzy market, playing for a winner trumps everything else. And competitors want to win first and foremost. The Lakers can no longer unfurl the purple-and-gold carpet and expect the stars to come charging down it.
Pelton: D is probably closest to my view. Not getting a meeting with Durant was a harsh dose of reality for Lakers exceptionalism. I also think a year of progress from the young players will be enough to get the Lakers back near the top of the list for 2017, particularly because they can sell the idea of two stars teaming up -- not really possible this summer because Durant is the only real superstar with a chance of changing teams.
4. What kind of trade would you like to see the Lakers make?
Elhassan: Like the free-agent conversation, the Lakers need vets who can help steer a very young locker room. Ideally, the type of deal they make would garner a vet who can play meaningful minutes without stunting the growth of the youth.
Holmes: First, if they can get anything for Nick Young, do it. Beyond that, if they can somehow acquire an established All-Star for a couple of their young players, I'd strongly consider that, too, depending on the player you'd get in return. But I like their young core and would like to see it stick together for a while. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think they could have a bright future together.
Engelmann: I think trading Nick Young makes sense, given that I want them to keep Russell, who Young had a beef with, and given that Young's RPM was sixth-worst in the entire league last season. He won't net you much in return, but it's a clear case of addition by subtraction. Maybe the 76ers would be interested -- they desperately need scorers.
Doolittle: Moving Lou Williams for a proven defender would make a lot of sense. His bench scoring can be a tipping-point addition for the right team. But there are some free agents that could also help the Lakers improve their defensive profile and offer leadership for a young roster, like Jared Dudley. That's the real focus.
Pelton: I'd love to see them explore trading Lou Williams to a team that gets sticker shock from the higher prices of similar reserve guards this summer.
As for something bolder, I'd consider offering the Philadelphia 76ers Russell for Nerlens Noel and the return of next year's protected pick. As much as I like Russell, there's a chance the Lakers sign a free agent point guard next summer (perhaps one who shares his first name with Russell's last name). Noel would be a great fit defensively and his low cap hold would preserve much of the Lakers' precious space if they waited to re-sign him as a restricted free agent.
5. How many playoff appearances will the Lakers make in the next five seasons?
Elhassan: I wouldn't be surprised to see them get two. Maybe three if they get lucky and have a good enough 2016-17 to convince an impact free agent next summer that the Lakers are worth joining.
Holmes: Man, it's hard to predict five years into the future. Heck, if you had told me three years ago that the Warriors would come along and do what they did, I'd have laughed. But I think it's reasonable to say that, barring some blockbuster move, the Lakers steadily improve for the next three seasons while still missing the playoffs, especially in the Western Conference, and then earn a low playoff seed in seasons four and five. I think they're at least two seasons away from reaching the playoffs, and even that seems optimistic from the Lakers' perspective.
Engelmann: I'd put the over/under at 1. They have zero players on their roster with an above-average RPM, and Ingram and Russell are two years away. They don't own all their future first round picks and just one big free-agent signing won't catapult the team to more than 40 wins, so they won't even sniff the playoffs until 2017-18.
Doolittle: It's either going to be three, four or zero. It not going to happen next season but if the young players develop, they can take a big step forward next summer or in 2018. But if the young foundation crumbles, then even the vaunted Lakers will have to consider an organizational tear down.
Pelton: The over-under is probably something like three, but I'd take the over and say four. I believe the summer of 2017 is when the Lakers return in full force by landing two big fish in free agency just as their young talent is ready to complement such stars.
Bonus: What's your take on the reported agreement with Timofey Mozgov on a four-year, $64 million contract?
Holmes: The silver lining: the Lakers covered two of their priorities by adding size and a capable veteran. Aside from that, positives are limited. They hoped for Hassan Whiteside or Bismack Biyombo or Al Horford, but instead they get a guy most famous for being dunked on. Adding Roy Hibbert last year felt risky for the Lakers, and he turned out to be awful. Right now, this feels like Roy Hibbert part II, only Mozgov could well be worse. Hey, it's a sign of the times.
Engelmann: Mozgov ranked 75th among 76 centers in real plus-minus (RPM) last season, so I think there is a chance this signing is a stealth tanking move by the Lakers (the Lakers' 2017 draft pick is top-three protected). The length of the contract, four years, makes this unlikely, though. The Lakers are probably hoping that Mozgov can return to 2014-15 form. While I think he can play better than last season, a full recovery seems unlikely and the Lakers will ultimately regret the signing.
Doolittle: The Lakers needed a long-term solution as a low-block presence and rim protector, preferably someone who wouldn't soak up a lot of possessions from their young scorers. But Mozgov? He turns 30 in a couple of weeks, and ranked 75th out of 76 centers in RPM last season. That's one spot behind Roy Hibbert. Did they even call Bismack Biyombo?
Pelton: In the right situation, Mozgov might have made sense as a reclamation project given the possibility that he was never healthy last season after knee surgery. The right situation is not a four-year contract at average starter money. Even if healthy, Mozgov has his best basketball behind him, since he's about to turn 30. Tying up so much cap space for so long on a player so unremarkable makes little sense.