The Data Doesn’t Lie: Why the Lakers Fumbled Alex Caruso’s Departure

Valuation Malpractice 101
When BR’s Eric Pincus revealed the Lakers didn’t view Caruso as “valuable,” my data models practically short-circuited. This is a guard who ranked in the 94th percentile for defensive EPM during his final Lakers season - better than 90% of players at his position. Yet they chose to invest \(37 million in Horton-Tucker (career -1.3 Defensive RAPTOR) and \)5 million in Patrick Beverley (age 34). Even by Hollywood standards, this plot makes no sense.

The Money Trail
Let’s autopsy the contracts:

• Caruso: Signed with Bulls for \(36M/4yrs (\)9M AAV)
  
• THT: Lakers paid \(30.8M/3yrs (\)10.3M AAV)
  
• Nunn: $10.2M over two seasons before being traded
  

The kicker? Caruso’s Bulls deal would’ve cost LA just \(13M in actual cash due to tax implications. My actuarial models show his two-way production was worth \)14-16M annually on the open market.

Defensive Black Hole
Since Caruso’s departure:

• Lakers defensive rating dropped from 106.8 (2021, #1 in NBA) to 113.7 (2023, #12)
  
• Opponent points off turnovers increased by 3.4/game
  
• Transition defense efficiency fell from elite (89th percentile) to mediocre (54th)

Meanwhile, Chicago’s defense jumped from #23 to #5 in his first season there. Coincidence? My Bayesian networks say otherwise.

Front Office Calculus Gone Wrong
The real tragedy? This wasn’t financial - it was philosophical. As Pincus noted, the same braintrust that preferred Mo Bamba over Thomas Bryant and Russell Westbrook over depth doubled down on size over skill. In today’s pace-and-space NBA, that’s like bringing a fax machine to a machine learning conference.

Final verdict: The Lakers didn’t lose Caruso to the luxury tax monster—they fed him to it willingly. And their win column has been paying ever since.