Lakers vs. the Free Agency Field
Most people look at the players when evaluating free agency, but, this season, the rest of the teams are probably MORE important than the players.
Why? Because last year, there were only two teams with $30m+ in cap space going into the offseason - the Lakers and the Bulls. 3 more teams probably could have maneuvered to clear the space: Dallas, Indiana and Philadelphia. That's why Logo said LBJ wasn't a "tough" signing for the Lakers - the only other team with any realistic chance of landing him was Philly.
This year, there are 9 teams with $30m+ in cap space - and they're not all stiffs. So which ones are the Lakers' biggest threats? Let's take a look at those teams (in o particular order):
The Legitimate Threats
- Los Angeles Clippers - back in the olden days, every teen-angst-sex-comedy cast a super-model as the "girl-next-door" character that the star overlooked until the end of the movie. They always tried to dress her down by putting her in glasses and pig tails, but anybody with two eyes knew she was hot. That's not the Clippers -- they've been overlooked for a reason: they sucked. But something "feels" different this season: they (finally) have stable management, a player-friendly coach, a roster filled with complimentary players, and play in a major market. The ONLY thing working against them right now is the fact that they're still the Clippers -- ain't no hottie under those glasses. Still, they could pull a Billy Joel/Lyle Lovett and land themselves a Christy Brinkley/Julia Roberts (dated reference alert).
- Philadelphia 76ers - this is the lynch-pin. What they do will ultimately determine what everybody else does in free agency. If they retain Butler and Harris, they remove themselves from the field and take two big names off the table. If they release Butler and Harris, they have to be considered a favorite to land a big name AND they increase the pool of top-tier targets for other teams (including the Lakers).
The Dark Horses
- Indiana Pacers - if it wasn't for the fact that it's Indiana and they're the Pacers, this would probably be a "no-brainer". Good coach, good management and a roster that perfectly build to absorb either a guard or a forward. It's actually a shame that they'll likely lose out on guys because it's Indiana and they're the Pacers, but it is what it is.
- Brooklyn Nets - same as the Clippers...they have history working against them. But, just like the Clippers, they've quietly built a nice little shop. Still, they're roster is a little more shaky and they have to make a decision on D'Lo that will impact free agents either way. They could be players, but not likely.
The Non-Factors
- New York Knicks - not exactly sure why they come up as a free agent destination every few years...but they do. That said, it's hard to see them as a realistic destination, unless guys decide they REALLY want to play with Dennis Smith, jr.
- Dallas Mavericks - Mavs are in a full blown rebuild. They have a few decent role players. They have Zingis. That's it. They're more likely to absorb bad contracts for picks than to sign anybody to a major deal.
- Atlanta Hawks - they're the poor-man's equivalent of the Nets and the Clippers: too much history working against them and not enough roster talent. They may be joining the Mavs in taking bad contracts to acquire assets.
- Sacramento Kings - they fall somewhere between the Nets/Clippers and the Hawks/Mavs. Their young players are still a little too young and Harrison Barnes is still a little too Harrison Barnes. May be more of a threat next offseason when Barnes clears. Not so much now.
I didn't feel good about the Lakers chances at first, but, after breaking it down, they're in a better position than I thought: their biggest threat (Philly) will probably take themselves off the market, leaving just the Clippers. I know I probably shouldn't, but I have to like our chances against the Clippers.