Los Angeles Lakers offseason review

As the NBA offseason plows ahead we’re taking some time to pause and assess the work each team is doing, building for the present and future. Today, we’re looking at the Los Angeles Lakers.

Kobe Bryant has ridden into the sunset and for the first time in two decades, the Los Angeles Lakers had an offseason to build for a tangible future instead of a hypothetical one. How did they do about continuing preparations for the post-Kobe era?

Inputs: Brandon Ingram (SF, NBA Draft pick No. 2); Ivica Zubac (C, NBA Draft pick No. 32); Timofey Mozgov (C, signed for four years, $64 million); Luol Deng (SF, signed for four years, $72 million); Jose Calderon (PG, traded from the Chicago Bulls)

Outputs: Kobe Bryant (SG, retired); Metta World Peace (SF, unsigned); Robert Sacre (C, unsigned); Roy Hibbert (C, signed with the Charlotte Hornets); Brandon Bass (PF, signed with the Los Angeles Clippers), Ryan Kelly (PF, unsigned)

Retained: Jordan Clarkson (SG, signed for four years, $50 million); Tarik Black (PF, signed for two years, $12 million); Marcelo Huertas (PG, signed for two years, $3.3 million)

Pending: None

With the No. 2 pick in the draft, the Lakers were assured of ending up with Ben Simmons and Brandon Ingram and were likely thrilled that Ingram was the player available. His physical frame needs some work — Ingram measured at 6-9.5 in shoes, with a 7-3 wingspan, but only 196 pounds– but he has the potential to be very good at both ends of the floor. At this point his defensive game is about his length and his offensive game is mostly about his smooth jumpshot and a burgeoning dribble-drive game. Adding strength is a must but he could wind up being the player who defines this draft.

In the second round, the Lakers added Croatian center, Ivica Zubac. Of imposing size and strength with nice touch around the basket, Zubac impressed at Summer League and could be ready to chip in some back-up minutes this season.

After their haul in the draft, the Lakers worked on rounding out the roster by locking down Jordan Clarkson and adding some veteran structure. Clarkson is an important part of the young core, capable of playing both backcourt positions and offering a nice complement to D’Angelo Russell, Ingram and Julius Randle. Luol Deng may crowd the wing rotation but he’s a perfect fit as a veteran to help lead by example. The Mozgov signing may turn out to be a mistake but he if can capture some of the magic he had during the Cavaliers 2015 playoff run, the Lakers could be surprisingly frisky this season.

3 Big Questions

To really dig deep on Los Angeles’ offseason, I’m leaning on friends with some Lakers expertise. Cody Williams (@TheSizzle20) is a regular contributor to FanSided and an editor for FanSided’s Lake Show Life. Darius Soriano (@forumbluegold) is the editor of the TrueHoop Network’s Forum Blue and Gold. Kaveh Jam (@KavehsRoom) is a regular contributor to FanSided’s Hardwood Paroxysm.

Cody, Darius, and Kaveh were nice enough to help out by answering three big questions about Los Angeles’ offseason.

Any chance the Lakers wind up with buyer’s remorse on the Timofey Mozgov signing?

Cody Williams: How can they not? I think Mozgov is going to be a better fit and overall player for the Lakers than many fans will expect him to be. If he returns to form, he could legitimately be a fantastic cog on both ends of the floor in the system Luke Walton’s expected to run. However, that’s not every piece of the equation.

Even more concerning than the notion of paying Mozgov $16 million per season is the idea of doing it for four years. By the end of that contract, you’re talking about a big man in his mid-30s and a player with limited athleticism and speed being even less athletic and speedy — and you’re still going to be paying the guy that $16 million at that point as well.

What’s worse is that there might be a shred of buyer’s remorse creeping in already for the Lakers after seeing rookie center Ivica Zubac play at Summer League. Zubac isn’t ready in terms of skill or physicality to take Mozgov’s spot right way in his first season, but what he showed in Vegas indicated that he could be closer to that point than previously expected. For a deal that was already looking questionable, that makes the Mozgov contract even more suspect for the Lakers.

Darius Soriano: While I think Mozgov can return to the form he showed in his last full season in Denver and in the second half of the season after his trade to the Cavs, I think the answer to this question has to be yes. From a dollars standpoint, the Lakers overpaid. When you also consider his deal runs until the summer he turns 34, they will be paying that exorbitant salary when he is past his prime. I just don’t see how this ends well.

Yes, the salary cap explosion makes the yearly salary somewhat more palatable. And, yes, every contract is tradable and if the Lakers really need to find a way to dump his deal in year three or four, they will likely be able to. But if any part of your free agent analysis involves looking ahead to being able to trade the contract, you’re already admitting some problems with the deal.

Kaveh Jam: The explosion in the salary cap caused an earthquake of movement during free agency with massive financial ripple effects league-wide that will likely push well into the foreseeable future. Yet, for those who have been paying attention, most of it was expected. Even in this environment the Lakers somehow managed to surprise.

From a financial perspective, the Mozgov contract feels like an atrocity but it makes even less sense from a basketball perspective. He’s an upgrade over Roy Hibbert and that appears to be where the upside ends. The value in Mozgov likely stems from the Cavaliers 2015 NBA finals run where he logged a regular season and playoff career-high 26.5 minutes per game. He was the beneficiary of substantial attention given to LeBron James who also happens to be one of the best passers the league has ever seen.

Defensively, Mozgov is a big body that anchored Cleveland’s interior defense. He quickly became unplayable once Golden State shifted to a quicker, athletic, perimeter lineup, baiting Mozgov away from the basket and rendering him a non-factor. In L.A., there will be no James to thread him passes. There is no Tristan Thompson to ease the rebounding burden. Instead, Mozgov finds himself wedged in the middle of a Laker youth-movement that on paper is geared to push pace and emphasize perimeter shooting.

The Lakers hiring of Luke Walton as coach signaled a progressive attempt to align with the direction of the league. Mozgov’s signing – particularly at his price – appears a stark contrast to versatility, shooting, and mobility. Aside from being on the wrong side of the age curve, being virtually phased out from the Cavaliers rotation since those finals more than a year ago, his health alone presents massive uncertainties.

Even more bizarre is the urgency in which the Lakers approached the signing of a player who likely would have been available later at a cheaper price. In a summer heavy with free-agent centers, they committed multiple years to one with an irregular fit and a murky health record. All of it feels like a formula for massive buyer’s remorse even if they don’t publicly admit it.

Brandon Ingram will be                      this season.

Cody Williams: Varying levels of exciting and disappointing. There’s no doubt that a wing with a 7-3 wingspan is going to be able to affect some games in a positive way on both offense and defense. He’ll have games where his shot is falling and no one can truly contest his jumper in addition to games where he’s just in the way and causing problems as a defender. Conversely, he’s going to have games where he’s physically getting bullied, not well enough adjusted to the quickness of the NBA game, and simply doesn’t look nearly as good.

Ingram certainly wasn’t a player that was drafted wholly on what he’s going to bring to the table as a rookie. He still has plenty of growth left ahead of him in terms of the natural transition from the college game to the NBA and in regards to him weighing roughly 12 pounds when soaking wet. He’s going to have his moments of brilliance created by his talent and physical gifts, but there will be other moments that make you want to pull your hair out as well.

Darius Soriano: A solid rotation player who shows flashes of how good he can be. Ingram offers tantalizing potential as an all-court, two-way player. His scoring and playmaking combined with his height and length are pretty rare and, with those things alone, he’ll have some success on both sides of the ball. But he’ll need to get stronger and that strength deficiency, at least in his rookie year, will show up in so many small ways that will impact his ability to play up to his skill set.

Additionally, with Luol Deng in the mix, Ingram isn’t likely to begin the season as a starter and may not even close out games. I love Ingram’s poise and demeanor. I love his overall skill and how he doesn’t “back down from the moment”. But his rookie year will be a full 19-year old campaign — compare that to Ben Simmons who is already 20 — and, even as the No. 2 overall pick, I think we need to dial back expectations and let him grow into his body while letting his game continue to develop at the same time.

Kaveh Jam: If his Summer League is any indication, he will be inconsistently good. Ingram’s performance in Las Vegas was a blend of aggressive scoring spurts, moments of perimeter shot making, and awkward penetration drives. Against the Sixers and No. 1 pick Ben Simmons, Ingram started 0-for-8 from the field but still showed flashes of defensive potential.

In person, Ingram is rail thin but he is also one of the youngest prospects in the draft at 18-years of age (he’ll be 19 at the beginning of September). To an extent he makes up for it with a 7-3 wingspan that has the propensity to cause constant disruption defensively. The talent in Ingram seems to be as advertised but compared to his lottery counterparts, his age and inexperience may slightly temper his rookie impact.

How does a guard/wing rotation of D’Angelo Russell, Jordan Clarkson, and Brandon Ingram shake out now and for the future?

Cody Williams: Jordan Clarkson right now is the most interesting piece on the Lakers to me. The work that he’s put in to be fully deserving of the contract he signed this summer is incredible. That being said, Clarkson still looks like a sixth man playing as a starting guard simply because the Lakers aren’t very good right now.

Meanwhile, D’Angelo Russell is 100 percent in the correct role. He showed flashes last season of what he can be when he’s allowed freedom as a starting point guard and it feels inevitable that Luke Walton will allow him that freedom. Moreover, you have to like the notion of Clarkson eventually coming off of the bench and the offensive threat that lineup will present some time down the road.

Ingram is the interesting piece that could really bring it all together eventually as a potential lockdown defender and lethally versatile offensive player. However, I don’t think we’re going to be seeing much of that in LA this season as Luol Deng is going to be seeing most of the minutes (at least early on in the year if not for the entire season) alongside Russell and Clarkson. So for this year, we probably will only get rare glimpses at that rotation.

For the future, though, that rotation has the potential to be something incredible offensively. With the right progression, all three players will have the ability to attack the rim off the dribble but also to knock down shots on the perimeter. While Ingram may appear to be the only potentially great defender, there’s also still hope as to what that rotation can do on that end eventually.

Darius Soriano: In the short term, when adding Luol Deng to the equation, I think Ingram will end up being a bit of the odd man out. Russell and Clarkson are 30+ minute a night players. Deng, meanwhile, will get at least 25 minutes a night, and probably more if he plays some PF. This doesn’t leave a ton of minutes for Ingram, and he probably ends up being a 25 minute a night guy who might even end up sitting in crunch time.

In the long term, I think Clarkson ends up being a sixth man who can be an instant-offense, second unit anchor while Ingram and Russell become front line starters. That’s nothing against Clarkson who continues to outplay his draft slot through hard work and a commitment to improve. But, when looking at his profile, overall feel for the game (beyond creating his own shot), and physical attributes for his position — especially when compared to Russell and Ingram, who both offer elite size for a point guard and small forward respectively — Clarkson’s ceiling looks to be lower than his two teammates who were picked in the high lottery.

Kaveh Jam: The success of that core depends on how quickly they develop individually. From a coaching perspective, Luke Walton feels like the quintessential guy to flush that out. The elite lineups in the NBA are usually such because each individual piece is a seamless mesh with another. That doesn’t happen until the chemistry begins to materialize.

Russell’s play took an immense leap in Summer League after pocketing one year of NBA experience. He led everyone in scoring (minimum four games), showed elite command of the ball, and was much less awkward in breaking the defense down off the dribble than he did a year ago on the same stage.

Clarkson functioned best last season as a dual-threat combo guard, which means sliding him on-and-off between the shooting-guard spot should only enhance his scoring and attacking opportunities. A lineup featuring those two plus Ingram feels like it should flourish in a spread offense a la Golden State. Still, their ceiling as a unit will largely depend on individual development. Russell’s growth will need to continue upward in trajectory, Clarkson will need to increase efficiency while staying aggressive offensively, and Ingram will need to adapt to playing with grown men. If everything breaks right, this core has the potential to be one of the more entertaining young rotations in the league.

What kind of shooter is Brandon Ingram?

Brandon Ingram looks to be an elite offensive prospect and, at this point, the most NBA-ready of his scoring skills appears to be his jumper. Last season at Duke, Ingram made 41.0 percent of his three-pointers, on more than nine attempts per 40 minutes. That’s high-efficiency and high-volume. Plug that into the rest of his offensive repertoire, combined with his physical profile, and you have something special.

However, projecting how a player will shoot three-pointers in the NBA is not as easy as rolling over their college percentage. The NBA line is farther from the basket and the context is usually dramatically different — from teammates, to defenses, to offensive roles. It would be nice to assume that Ingram will continue to be a 40 percent three-point shooter in the NBA but that level of performance is fairly rare. Last season, just 23 players shot 40 percent or better on at least 150 three-point attempts.

In projecting what kind of three-point shooter Ingram will be, we can turn to the work of Nylon Calculus’ Andrew Johnson. After some research and testing, Johnson found a simple model to use a player’s college statistics and project their NBA three-point percentage for years three and four of their NBA career (when they have theoretically settled into their professional niche). Johnson found three predictive factors — three-point attempts per 40 minutes (demonstrating confidence from the player and the team in their outside shot), free throw percentage (a proxy for the level of control and consistency in their shooting form), and three-point percentage (the best reflection of what we’re actually looking for). According to Johnson’s work, they are all roughly of equal value in projecting how good a three-point shooter a player will become.

Using Johnson’s model, here are the projected three-point percentages for the outside shooters taken in the first round of this year’s draft.

Ingram falls more towards the middle of the group projecting as a good, but not elite, three-point shooter by percentage. The key factor for him is free throw percentage which dramatically dragged down his projection. For example, if Ingram had made 80 percent of his free throws last season, his projection would jump to 38.6 percent.

There are some caveats here. Johnson’s model only captures about 30 percent of the variation in actual three-point percentages so it is a noisy estimate (although likely much more accurate than just assuming he’ll shoot above 40 percent because he did in college). Also, the nature of Ingram’s three-point attempts in the NBA can shade that hypothetical 37.0 projection. For example, Paul George and Ersan Ilyasova both shot 37.1 percent on three-pointers last season. Ilyasova did it on 5.5 attempts per 40 minutes, the vast majority of which were catch-and-shoot. George did it on 8.0 attempts per 40 minutes with a fairly high-number of off-the-dribble or self-created threes. If Ingram can manage 37.0 percent in a context similar to George’s, that’s a much more useful offensive tool for the Lakers.

Again, these are all just estimates. Ingram may turn out to be the best offensive player in this draft class, but as a three-point shooter he may be a step below a few of his peers like Buddy Hield, Jamal Murray, and Denzel Valentine.

For more NBA coverage and analysis, visit the FanSided NBA hub page.