LeBron Pulled A Reverse Melo

[Ed Monix]

I have posted this notion in various forms before on the forum, but this is the first correlation to the Carmelo Anthony - Denver situation.

Although the Lakers management has been a complete dumpster fire, LeBron shares considerable amount of blame for their downfall. It was the Lakers incompetence and luck that gave them the roster to compete for years to come. Before the Anthony Davis trade, the Lakers had; Lonzo Ball, Reggie Bullock, Alex Caruso, Josh Hart, Brandon Ingram, Kyle Kuzma…and an upcoming pick that would turn into De’Andre Hunter (Darius Garland was the following pick).

Because of LeBron’s short sightedness, he stripped the Lakers of all their current and future assets for Anthony Davis, a player whom the year prior had signed with Klutch and only had another season left on his contract before an opt-out. Davis only had to stick it out in New Orleans for one more year then walk into an instant title contender/dynasty.

Given LeBron would have seen how his friend Carmelo destroyed his chances at building a title threat in New York by forcing them to give up long term assets for a player who could join a year later in free agency, you’d think he would have known better.

[Donoghus]

Agreed that LA is a dumpster fire and made short sighted moves, in hindsight. 

However, bubble or not, they still got that championship.  So, the future might be bleak for them (which I'm fine with) but they still got a ring there.

[Moranis]

You make the Davis trade every single time as it got them a title.  It wasn't that move that was their downfall, it was the moves that followed it, like the Kuzma, KCP, Harrell for Westbrook trade.  Letting Caruso, Schroder, Matthews, Howard, etc. walk for nothing. 

[Kernewek]

Let’s also remember that the Anthony saga was also to do with signing the super max with Denver, not just the massive dismantling of New York. The Knicks blinked, but that’s not Carmelo’s fault.

[celticsclay]

It’s pretty widely accepted that the lakers overpaid for Davis especially given that the pelicans had absolutely no leverage. Davis himself nixed deals to other teams like our very own Celtics. And while I agree the championship is good and can’t be taken away from them, it is also worth pointing out the lakers are not ever organization. If the jazz or magic or timberwolves did this, small market teams that would go absolutely crazy to win a single championship, i would say, you still have to do it. The craziest part about this is the trade only has the potential to get worse for the lakers. They already gave up a lottery pick last year they never imagined would happen. They appear likely to give up another lottery pick this year, potentially a high one. You start talking about giving multiple lottery picks on top of losing Ingram (potentially a perennial all star), ball, hart etc. it may become a truly awful trade.

[BudweiserCeltic]

You make the Davis trade every single time as it got them a title.  It wasn't that move that was their downfall, it was the moves that followed it, like the Kuzma, KCP, Harrell for Westbrook trade.  Letting Caruso, Schroder, Matthews, Howard, etc. walk for nothing.

Yep, like it or not, they got their title. You make that move 10 times out of 10, future be [dang]ed.

[SparzWizard]

They got the championship and tied us. And I hope we one up them very soon like this season and not wait for another 22 year drought. This is drought year 14 or 15 now?

[JSD]

OP brings up a good point. Melo could have just waited a year, then went to NY with a great supporting cast. Same thing with AD, he could have just waited and the Lakers would be loaded right now.

But like others have said, who knows if they would’ve gotten the title? So you take the title 10 out of 10 times. The title provided James with complete vindication.

[Kernewek]

OP brings up a good point. Melo could have just waited a year, then went to NY with a great supporting cast. Same thing with AD, he could have just waited and the Lakers would be loaded right now.

But like others have said, who knows if they would’ve gotten the title? So you take the title 10 out of 10 times. The title provided James with complete vindication.

Since we all agree that there's no guarantee that the Lakers or the Knicks win the title, why would you, as a player, take a smaller contract?

[Moranis]

OP brings up a good point. Melo could have just waited a year, then went to NY with a great supporting cast. Same thing with AD, he could have just waited and the Lakers would be loaded right now.

But like others have said, who knows if they would’ve gotten the title? So you take the title 10 out of 10 times. The title provided James with complete vindication.

Since we all agree that there's no guarantee that the Lakers or the Knicks win the title, why would you, as a player, take a smaller contract?

Yep, and there is also no guarantee for the team that the player actually ends up there.  The Pelicans could have traded Davis to a team, and maybe Davis really likes the team, his teammates, etc.  Remember when Paul George was destined to go to L.A., well he ended up liking Oklahoma City and Westbrook so much, he signed a massive extension to stay there.  OKLAHOMA CITY, RUSSELL WESTBROOK.  The team has to make the move when the player is available or you can end up missing out completely.

Again it wasn't the Davis trade that has been the problem for the Lakers, it was all the moves since making that trade (or really since winning the title), that have been the disaster.  I'm not sure they've done a single thing correctly since cutting down the nets in the bubble.

[JohnBoy65]

Couldn't you argue Boston did the same in '07? Traded almost all of their draft capital and young talent to build a contender. We got 1 title. If Danny had just let that team fizzle on it's own we would have had no young players (other than Rondo and Jeff Green), and no real exciting draft capital.

[johnnygreen]

There was no way Anthony Davis was going to the Lakers via free agency. He was going to sign an extension with whoever traded for him. The Lakers made the trade to retain his Bird rights, so they could sign Davis to the biggest contract possible. Do not forget, Davis was only 25 at the time. What player is more concerned with titles rather than money at 25? Moranis pointed out Paul George being destined for LA but signed an extension with OKC instead. Did he really like OKC over LA, or was it because OKC could sign him to the most money?

[nickagneta]

I think the OP is seriously overvaluing the players the Lakers chose as draft picks. Ingram is the only good one and I'm not sure he will ever be a top 15 player in the NBA.

AD and a title or that group of drafted players? I'ld take Davis and the titles every single dang time. The Lakers had the opportunity to have Tatum and Brown. Now had they drafted those two and traded them for Davis for the one title, well, completely different story, though Lebron is a smart enough guy that if he got to play a year with the Jays, he probably wouldn't have pushed for the Davis trade.

[JSD]

OP brings up a good point. Melo could have just waited a year, then went to NY with a great supporting cast. Same thing with AD, he could have just waited and the Lakers would be loaded right now.

But like others have said, who knows if they would’ve gotten the title? So you take the title 10 out of 10 times. The title provided James with complete vindication.

Since we all agree that there's no guarantee that the Lakers or the Knicks win the title, why would you, as a player, take a smaller contract?

I’m pretty sure the Lakers would’ve been in position to sign Davis for the max, as the majority of their players at the time were still on rookie contracts

[Kernewek]

OP brings up a good point. Melo could have just waited a year, then went to NY with a great supporting cast. Same thing with AD, he could have just waited and the Lakers would be loaded right now.

But like others have said, who knows if they would’ve gotten the title? So you take the title 10 out of 10 times. The title provided James with complete vindication.

Since we all agree that there's no guarantee that the Lakers or the Knicks win the title, why would you, as a player, take a smaller contract?

I’m pretty sure the Lakers would’ve been in position to sign Davis for the max, as the majority of their players at the time were still on rookie contracts

Sure, but a max contract is a fluid thing - like Johnny Green said, trading for Davis allows the Lakers to sign him to a five year deal instead of a four year deal because they hold his Bird rights if they trade for him. In other words, if Davis waits for free agency that's an extra year of guaranteed cash ($43m+, according to Spotrac) that he's effectively leaving on the table. For a guy that cracked 70+ games just twice in a season before then, that's gotta be a difficult decision.

  OKLAHOMA CITY, RUSSELL WESTBROOK. 

This is impossible to read except in the voice of Stephen A Smith