Lavine can certainly score; in fact, he’s built a career out of it. Prior to this season, he averaged at least 23.7 points per game in five consecutive seasons, and he’s a lifetime 38.2% three-point shooter.
From an offensive standpoint, the Lakers could definitely benefit from Lavine’s scoring abilities, given their mediocre rankings — 23rd in offensive rating, 16th in points per game, 27th in three-point percentage, and tied for last in three-pointers per game — in nearly every offensive category.
However, the Lakers are still winning games thanks to LeBron James’s great play — 25.0 points per game on 55.3% shooting from the field and 40.7% from beyond the arc — and superb defense, ranking sixth in defensive rating and eighth in field goal percentage allowed.
While the Lakers tend to love the concept of a “Big Three” or a super squad, it isn’t always a good one. One only has to recall the terrible experiment involving Russell Westbrook, a former MVP whose ball-dominant style was an extreme mismatch with James.
That trade for Westbrook, less than a year after the Lakers won a championship behind the James/Anthony Davis tandem and a tough defensive identity, pushed the Lakers back a couple of years and virtually eliminated them from postseason contention.
In other words, the Lakers gave up their defensive identity in order to get a third star for an offensive boost, and they paid dearly for it, including Westbrook’s team-high $44.2 million contract and $46.3 million pay during his two seasons with the Lakers.
General manager Rob Pelinka learnt his lesson from that blunder and is taking a more cautious approach this time.
Lavine is not only a defensive disaster — his 117.5 defensive rating ranks 12th among all NBA shooting guards — but his contract is the biggest issue. If Lavine was on a more cap-friendly contract, such as teammate DeMar DeRozan’s expiring $28.6 million deal, that might be a risk worth taking.
When you consider that Lavine earns an average annual salary of $43 million and is due to earn at least that amount in each of the next three seasons — he has a player option for the 2026-27 season — it makes no sense for the Lakers to commit to a player who has never proven to be an integral part of a team that consistently wins games.
In fact, after going 5-14 to begin the season, the Bulls are now on a three-game winning run sans Lavine, who will be out for the next three to four weeks due to foot inflammation.
The move isn’t shocking given the timetable — Lavine might be out until mid-January — which corresponds with when teams can trade free-agent signings. That day is Jan. 15, when players like Gabe Vincent — a name commonly discussed in connection with a potential Lavine deal — become available.
While it’s a tiny sample size, it’s worth noting that the Bulls, who rank 20th in defense this season, have improved their defense, ranking No. 6 in their last three games sans Lavine.
Perhaps most startling is their increased offensive play without Lavine, with the ball flowing much more freely — 29.0 assists per game compared to 21.9 with him in the lineup — without him. Their pace level has also improved, as they now rank 22nd in the league (98.74) over the previous three games after finishing dead bottom in the league (95.8) for the whole season.
Since DeRozan’s arrival, the Bulls have gone 14-11 without Lavine in the lineup and 82-86 in games in which he has appeared. Lavine has only appeared in one NBA playoff series in his first nine seasons in the league.
The prospect of obtaining a player in his prime in Lavine is appealing; in fact, it’s a move that the Lakers normally take advantage of when given the chance.
But it’s simply not a move worth making, especially given Lavine’s large pay commitment.
The Lakers are better off the court and obviously better on the court without Lavine.