The Los Angeles Lakers have caught a lot of undeserved flack for the price they paid to get Walker Kessler — both from a contract perspective and the draft capital surrendered to pry away the restricted free agent from the Utah Jazz. The question is: Why? What was the alternative that would have been anywhere near as effective and rewarding for the Lakers?
An A-list center was needed to satisfy Luka Doncic. The only options who fit that description were Kessler and Jalen Duren, both of whom were restricted free agents. The latter would have required a similar, if not worse, overpay. Beyond that, let us look at the top unrestricted options at center.
Mitchell Robinson, right? That would have been the next best alternative for the Lakers. It was even one that Dan Woike reported the franchise did have some interest in.
"Had it not been Kessler, the Lakers, according to team and league sources, would’ve likely tried to sign free agent center Mitchell Robinson, who left the New York Knicks to sign a three-year, $47.4 million deal with Boston."
Would the Lakers have avoided the criticism they faced for the Kessler move by opting for a frontcourt featuring a two-man rotation of Robinson and Deandre Ayton instead? Let us not kid ourselves. The answer is no.
Paying up for Walker Kessler beats the alternative of Mitchell Robinson
With all due respect to Robinson, the former Knicks champion is nowhere near as impactful of a player as Kessler. They are not even in the same stratosphere.
Kessler is the type of defensive anchor at center that gameplans and schemes can be built around. Even if someone wanted to argue that the two are a wash on offense, which is a puzzling argument in itself, that does not erase the degrees of separation on the other end.
In the Lakers' shoes, how do you justify settling for mediocre when there is an opportunity for a game-changer? That is doubly true considering Doncic's contract situation still quietly weights heavily in the background.
This is a clear situation where the Lakers get thrown under the spotlight one way or the other. In this instance, it is much easier to defend a situation where they swung for the fences, rather than the other option of playing it safe.
Even with the center depth lacking behind Kessler, he alone delivers much more upside at the position than the alternative. Those continuing to criticize the move are willingly ignoring the context.
Add us as a preferred source on Google