The Los Angeles Lakers needed to clear a roster spot. They should also clear up how a player they selected with the No. 17 pick just two years ago became someone they could no longer use.

The Lakers waived Dalton Knecht on Monday, ending his brief tenure and reducing their roster to the NBA’s 15-player limit. What once looked like a valuable draft acquisition ultimately produced neither a lasting rotation player nor a trade return.

That deserves more scrutiny than the usual explanation that basketball is a business.

Of course it is. And in this business, turning a first-round investment into a preseason roster cut should require an explanation from the people who made the investment.

Knecht has responsibilities here, too. He needed to improve, earn minutes and make himself indispensable. The Lakers were under no obligation to keep him simply because they drafted him.

But his failure to establish himself does not automatically absolve the organization that selected, coached and ultimately discarded him.

JJ Redick’s Explanation Raises Another Question

Discussing Knecht’s situation before the roster decision, coach JJ Redick pointed to the changing team around him.

“The team changed. Needs changed, the fit changed,” Redick said, according to Lakers Nation. Redick also said he believed Knecht had improved over his two seasons.

That is a reasonable explanation for why a player might lose his role. It is also an invitation to examine the Lakers’ planning.

If Knecht improved but became less useful, how much of this outcome belongs to the player? How much belongs to an organization whose personnel decisions left him without a place?

Teams must adapt. Nobody should demand that the Lakers preserve their 2024 roster structure to accommodate one draft pick. But successful roster management includes anticipating which young players can survive those changes — and recognizing when to move them before their value disappears.

“Fit changed” explains the destination. It does not settle whether the Lakers handled the journey well.

There Was Something Here to Develop

Knecht’s early promise was more than summer-league optimism.

In November 2024, he scored 37 points against Utah and made nine 3-pointers, matching the NBA’s single-game rookie record for made threes. It was the kind of performance that made his selection look like a steal.

One spectacular night never guaranteed a successful career. Shooting alone does not ensure a dependable NBA role.

Still, there was a foundation. Knecht averaged 9.1 points in 19.2 minutes across 78 games as a rookie. Last season, those figures fell to 4.2 points in 10.2 minutes over 54 appearances.

That decline demands a fuller assessment than saying he did not work out.

Did the Lakers overestimate how quickly his other skills would develop? Did the coaching staff struggle to find a workable role? Did roster changes make his limitations harder to accommodate?

Those possibilities carry different lessons. The front office should know which ones apply.

The Failed Trade Belongs in the Story

There is another complication in Knecht’s Lakers tenure: the organization had already tried to move him.

He was part of the February 2025 deal for Charlotte center Mark Williams that was subsequently rescinded. Knecht returned to a team that had just agreed to send him elsewhere.

It would be speculative to declare that episode responsible for his subsequent struggles. Players navigate trade discussions throughout their careers, and Knecht still had to perform.

But evaluating his development means considering the environment alongside the results. The Lakers saw him as a prospect, then a trade asset, then a returning player whose place remained uncertain.

That history makes it especially important to understand what development plan existed for him after the deal collapsed.

Cutting Him Can Be Correct — and the Outcome Still Be a Failure

The strongest defense of Monday’s decision is straightforward: keeping an inferior roster fit to protect the front office’s pride would have compounded the problem.

Agreed.

Once the Lakers concluded Knecht could not help enough, moving on may have been the right basketball decision. A first-round selection should never become a lifetime roster entitlement.

But making the correct final decision does not erase the decisions that preceded it.

The Lakers spent the No. 17 pick on a player who was gone before his third regular season with the team. They owe themselves an honest accounting of whether the failure began with the scouting evaluation, developed through the coaching process or accelerated through roster construction.

Knecht now has to prove he belongs somewhere else.

The Lakers should have to explain why they could not make him belong here.