Lakers better without A.D?

I know L.A won the chip last year but given all the assets used to acquire the big man, would L.A have been better off long term with all their 1st rounders, which will be especially valuable post LBJ, resigning Ingram, Ball, Hart, Lou & Randle and having a much stronger complementary parts around LeBron?

@GrayMatter2019

Lakers won the chip with AD so it was the right move.  LeBron does not have time to wait for development of Ingram and Ball.  Randle was already on his way out.  Hart is just a nice bench player.  The Lakers are in a win now mode.

NO, better off with AD a historically great player. THERE'S ONLY A SELECT SMALL GROUP OF THESE TYPE PLAYERS to go around, anytime you can get one giving up other players you take it. 

A first rounder in the NBA is not all that valuable as many never turn into very good players, they end up solid contributors but that's about it, not all-time great players like AD.

AND AS TWECAR SAID, LEBRON'S TIME IS VERY LIMITED AND THEY MUST WIN NOW. 

I agree that Maybe they would have better teams after Lebron is gone but having 1 or 2 titles now and having worse teams after Lebron is gone is the better choice. Why have playoff teams that lose in playoffs after Lebron leaves when you can challenge for the title now.

I think every team would take a shot at the title now in exchange for better teams but not true title contenders down the road.

Absolutely not

I am sorry...but are you serious?  A generational BIG who is the best in the business and who helped deliver a title? Recently his absence alone dropped all LAL production on both ends of the court. You also CANT afford all of that plus Lebron...so it is not an A/B comparison between the options. 

they won a title the very first year..the question answers itself.you cannot actually be serious.it is highly,highly debatable/doubtful that a championship was on the horizon had ingram/ball/hart etc stayed with lebron so the equation is fairly simple.

davis injury history and potential for that to continue going forwards is the one black mark against him,but you cannot for one second question that talent wise it was anything but a no-brainer,you dont even hesitate to make that trade..the guy is in the top 3 all time in PER i think and will likely be amongst the very best forwards to ever play.no rational,objective person can make an argument that keeping the young guys would have been a better decision.but in the end we never know of course.

Randle's production this year while not close to peak A.D, is more than comparable. Ingram has turned into a borderline franchise superstar, while Ball has massively underachieved, with L.A he would have been no more than a ball distributor/ bulldog defender, Hart & Lou give you bench production & 3 pt shooting this team is sorely lacking. Lakers won the chip so they won the trade in a sense. But you can't not play devil's advocate and contemplate what might have been if only they had stayed patient with their rebuild. 

Lakers -0.7 points per game without AD compared to with him.

I’m sure they are better defensively with him though.

but look at the huge shadow that lebron casts over any team he is on and how it affects those around him??sure he makes you better overall but the individual development of those players may have been seriously stunted had they stayed with the lakers as EVERYTHING is centred around lebron and targeted towards championship only...its all a big pile of what ifs and maybes but being a lebron team-mate can break alot of guys and he is known notoriously for not really wanting to play with young guys when it comes to building a title contender quickly...just look at the one year they did play together,can you say that any of ingram/ball/kuzma/hart took a leap forward?...in the end its all about lebrons timeline and as much as we think he might be invincible and "timeless" the clock is ticking.

Hey if Brady can play into his mid 40's in a much harder sport for longevity and the risk of career ending injury can happen in any play, so can LBJ.

lol at harder sport.

I like the NFL and NBA as much as anyone else - but all the rules have been changed over the years making it soft as hell for QBs.  Defenders can barely even touch them on a legal hit without being flagged for it.

The league has done everything they can to protect QBs so the QBs are able to keep playing into older ages and can risk running and other crazy stuff without getting popped.

Only time will tell....And you have to wait another 2-3 years...If all they get is 1 title with LBJ and AD then yes it was a bad deal...

It only gets harder from here on out to win a title as LBJ is only going to decline....

What everyone fails to realize is that they could have kept all their assets/young players and still sign a max guy maybe AD but would have to wait a year. They won the title last year so for now it has worked out.  Imagine having Ingram as your 2nd 3rd option now for the next 10 years...Ball is a decent player...

Reminds me of the Melo trade. Knicks couldn't wait to give away the store to Denver when Melo clearly only wanted to play for them. Destroyed their depth & 1st rounders, one of which ended up being Murray.