As a free agent at the end of the season, here is why the Los Angeles Lakers should re-sign Julius Randle.
Can someone please rationally explain why in the world the Los Angeles Lakers are apparently looking to trade Julius Randle rather than signing him to a long-term extension?
Typically, these are the two common explanations for this lunacy:
a) Randle doesn’t have a good enough 3-point shot to stretch the floor, a favorable trait for big men today in the NBA.
b) He will be an restricted free agent when the season ends, and the Lakers ‘must’ create maximum cap space so they can sign two all-star quality free agents in the off-season.
Here is a rebuttal to the first argument:
1) Randle is currently averaging 13.4 points, 7 rebounds and 2 assists per game in just 23 minutes. All of those numbers have drifted higher since he was moved into the starting lineup. He is also shooting 55.4% from the field, which ranks 9th in the NBA (all statistics courtesy of www.basketball-reference.com). That is outstanding production from a player with a questionable outside shot.
2) He is without a doubt among the league’s best big men ball-handlers and passers. When he drives the length of the court, he is as powerful as a locomotive, and opposing players hesitate to get in his way.
3) Defensively, he has matched up effectively against both centers and power forwards, and is one of the league’s best big men when it comes to switching off of screens to guard a smaller, quicker player.
4) Randle worked hard in the offseason to get into the best shape of his life. He gives the team an important physical presence underneath the basket that would be otherwise be lacking.
5) The players he most closely resembles are Paul Millsap, Zach Randolph and perhaps Draymond Green. None of them were a three-point threat when they entered the NBA. Each steadily improved, and all became multiple-time All-Stars. There is every reason to believe that Randle’s shot will ultimately become a reliable scoring weapon.
Now let’s address the notion of clearing salary cap space. From a global perspective, what makes anyone believe that a team that currently has the second-worst record in the NBA is going to attract high quality free agents? That was exactly the strategy that Mitch Kupchak unsuccessfully employed, and for which he was widely criticized.
Yes, the Lakers have more attractive young players now. And yes, Magic Johnson will enthusiastically make his sales pitch. But understand that there is a reasonable possibility that the team can clear abundant cap space and will still be unable to sign any prominent free agent.
Yet speculation seems to focus on these three players:
Paul George, who is having an outstanding season with OKC. He is from Southern California, and grew up as a Kobe Bryant fan. But how likely will he be to leave behind Thunder teammates that include future Hall-of-Famers Russell Westbrook and Carmelo Anthony, along with a solid, underrated big man, Stephen Adams, and instead opt to join forces with youngsters who haven’t yet accomplished anything, Brandon Ingram, Lonzo Ball and Kyle Kuzma? Yes, it could happen, but would you bet all the house money on it? Even if it does, how well he fits with fellow forwards Ingram and Kuzma could be problematic.
Los Angeles Lakers
LeBron James, who is having yet another marvelous season with Cleveland. But once again, why exactly would he want to sign with a rebuilding team like the Lakers, especially in the Western Conference where he’d have to compete with the champion Warriors, the perennially strong Spurs, the offensively powerful Rockets, and the sharply-improved T-wolves?
In addition, James will turn 34-years-old shortly after the 2018-19 season begins. Up until now he has miraculously avoided major injury and continues to play at a very high level. But we all remember the various injuries that afflicted Kobe in his last few years. And as the saying goes, Father Time is undefeated, and will eventually catch up to James and slow him down.
How well James would really fit with the Lakers anyway is uncertain. The notion that he makes players around him better is, at best, puzzling. Which of these star teammates performed better with LeBron than without him- Wade, Bosh, Ray Allen, Irving or Love? The answer is that NONE of them did.
James excels at driving into the lane, attracting a multitude of defenders, and passing out to an open 3-point shooter, someone like James Jones. How many reliable catch-and-shoot guys are on the Lakers? Very few, if any. Also, if the goal for the Lakers is to become a sustainable threat to win a title, year after year, shouldn’t the ball be in the hands of young guys like Ball and Ingram to develop their potential? That won’t happen if James is on the court. He will instead demand control of the ball.
DeMarcus Cousins, who might be the best offensive big man in the NBA. On paper, at least, he looks like a great fit for the Lakers. However, he has a history of problems with coaches, teammates and opposing players. Has he matured enough yet? Also, he has a reputation for playing defense only when he feels like it. Finally, he hasn’t exactly led the teams he has played for in Sacramento and New Orleans to multiple playoff berths. Signing him is a risk with no guarantee of success.
So we have a situation in which signing just one star free agent may be challenging. And even if the Lakers do lure a big fish, there are potential red flags to consider.
Virtually any other team would be ecstatic with the progress of Randle, and would want to keep him on the team for many years to come. It makes little sense that the Lakers don’t share this viewpoint, and don’t want him to continue to be a part of what they are building.
Think of it this way. If the Lakers let Randle go and instead sign one of those free agents, do you really think they will instantaneously become contenders? The Warriors won their first title with a core of Curry, Thompson, Green and Barnes, all of which they drafted. The Spurs have contended for 20 years, always led by drafted stars Robinson, Duncan, Ginobili, Parker or Leonard. Why shouldn’t the Lakers try the same approach with Ingram, Ball, Kuzma and yes, Randle?
Next: Ranking the 50 greatest Lakers of all-time
Simply put, the Lakers are a better team with Randle than they would be without him. He grew up as a Lakers fan, and was ecstatic to be drafted by them. He is still only 23-years-old, and is steadily improving. Wouldn’t it be best for all concerned if he continues to do so in a Lakers uniform?