Why the Lakers pursuit of roster upgrades will require patience

The Lakers offseason has been quiet, with neither free agency nor the trade market offering any real roster changes...at least yet.

Nearly three weeks after the opening of free agency, the Lakers have the exact same roster they had to close this past season — save for the additions of Dalton Knecht and Bronny James, who were selected in the draft with the 17th and 55th picks, respectively. Those two effectively replaced Taurean Prince (Bucks) and Spencer Dinwiddie (currently unsigned in free agency).

The roster that many fans hoped would change after bowing out in the first round of the playoffs against the Nuggets has...decidedly not changed very meaningfully at all, outside of the nearly universal excitement about Knecht during Summer League.

When considering much of the reporting around the Lakers heading into this offseason spoke of an “aggressive” front office who would be willing to trade the “three first round picks they would have at their disposal” as of draft night back in June, the roster’s intertia has led to a fair amount of frustration from a healthy segment of the fan base.

This, of course, is pretty understandable. Fair or not, expectations of something happening were well planted into the headspace of hungry fans lusting for tweaks to a team that fell short. And, well, those wants have been unfulfilled.

The thing is, though, that to this point, I sort of understand why things have gone the way they have. And as frustrating as it’s been to watch the Lakers mostly sit out the frenzy that is free agency — and the trade market within it — change cannot be made just for change's sake.

Improving the team is the goal. Further, the nature of both free agency and trades is that you must get someone else to agree to what you’re pitching and without that agreement, nothing will happen.

Which brings me to my bigger point: reporting around what other teams have wanted from the Lakers to acquire players has revealed the general strategy used in negotiations is to try to exploit them in deals. It seems, again, based on reporting, that other teams believe that the Lakers are desperate for change, thus driving up costs and acting as though the Lakers should not value their own players very much at all while simultaneously overvaluing the players they are seeking in deals that could potentially help them improve.

For example, reports have noted that the Brooklyn Nets could be a team that both likes D’Angelo Russell as a player and has quality forwards available who could provide front court shooting and defense. Brooklyn is also in a bit of “sell” mode, having done some work to get control back of their own picks in the next two drafts, opening up the chance for them to care less about wins and, thus, unload some of their players for future draft picks.

Reports have noted, however, that the Nets are looking for at least one first round pick for either Cam Johnson or Dorian Finney-Smith. Don’t get me wrong, both of those players are good, and both would help the Lakers. BUT...

Johnson is a 28-year-old player who has never played more than 66 games in a season and has played 100 total games in his last two seasons combined. And he’s owed $23.6 million, $21.5 million and $23.6 million over his next three seasons. As the cap goes up, those numbers are not necessarily onerous, but his availability concerns and injury history don’t exactly make him a risk-free player.

Is Johnson worth a first round pick? Maybe. But I can understand why a GM might balk at that. I get that in terms of skill set, his shooting is valuable and in the Suns run to the Finals a few years ago, he showed off some defensive versatility that proved helpful. But, for comparison’s sake, last year, he shot 39.1% on 6.1 three-point attempts a game while Rui Hachimura shot 42.2% on 4.6 three-point attempts per game and he makes $17 million a season for the next two years.

Is anyone arguing the Lakers should be able to get a starting-caliber point guard and a first round pick back for Rui?

Photo by Harry How/Getty Images

Another example is the persistent Jerami Grant rumors and his potential fit on the Lakers as a two-way forward who can absorb some usage while also having enough defensive range to guard on the wing and slot between LeBron and AD. Grant is a good player who would certainly help.

Grant is also a player signed for the next four seasons with salaries of $29.7 million, $32.0 million, $34.2 million, and $36.4 million. At the end of the deal, he will be 34 years old.

Oh, and did I mention that final season is a player option? It’s not like the Lakers have ever had one of those not work out in their favor, though. Oh, wait.

When Grant signed his deal it was instantly hailed as one of the more burdensome deals in the league and one that might cost the Blazers assets to move off of. But, in a deal with the Lakers, he’d cost both their remaining tradable first rounders? Not to mention the salary needed to match the deal. Does this seem right to you?

This is not an environment conducive to doing business. Particularly for a Lakers team that:

• Only has two tradable first round picks in the future
• Should (and likely does) value the players they have under contract — specifically those who make more than the minimum and would need to serve as salary ballast in any medium to big dollar trade.
• Are likely only able to make one big trade or maybe two medium or smaller deals to improve the roster to the point that it takes a big enough step forward to compete for a title.

From my vantage point, the Lakers should be aggressive in seeking out improvements to their roster. But they should also be prudent in how they use their assets, especially when it comes to trading away their future picks and measuring what types of incoming talents should necessitate that sort of ask from a trade partner.

Said another way, the only way a team is getting both of those future first rounders is if they’re dealing me an All-Star. And if you want one of those firsts for a player who is a comparable talent to a player I already have on my roster, especially if he plays the same position, you’re likely not getting it either.

Considering all of that, my expectation is that the Lakers should (and likely will) only make a deal if one of two things happen:

1. Market conditions change and shift more towards the Lakers' direction in terms of asking prices for what assets they have
2. The perception of the Lakers changes to where they are viewed as less desperate to make a deal.

The second point ties into the first, but you get the point. If teams continue to ask for the moon, the Lakers are right to sit things out. It doesn’t mean they stop making calls or cease to explore opportunities to improve.

But aggressiveness does not equate to recklessness. And dealing from a position where the asks are too high of what you have to give is more likely to lead to the latter.

What I do expect to happen, however, is for this front office to find a deal that opens up at least one roster spot and, if possible, frees up some salary to be able use the taxpayer mid-level exception. The Lakers are currently about $45k under the 2nd apron line and would need about $5.2 million total in space cleared under that apron to access the tax-MLE.

The team needs to find at least one more viable rotation player in their 10-12 group of rostered players and, based on what we know from last season and how the summer has gone, that player is not likely on the team right now.

So, there is still work to do. But just don’t expect that work to include the type of roster-shifting move that looked to be the priority heading into free agency.

Because, based on a variety of factors, that doesn’t look to be on the horizon just yet.

You can follow Darius on Twitter at @forumbluegold.