LOS ANGELES — UConn men's basketball coach Dan Hurley publicly rejected the Los Angeles Lakers on Monday, a brutal look for the NBA's most followed and scrutinized franchise.

Hurley reportedly turned down a six-year, $70 million offer that would have made him one of the six highest-paid coaches in the NBA, according to ESPN's Adrian Wojnarowski. That might seem high for a first-time NBA coach, but it could also be seen as low for the league's third-most valuable franchise.

If Hurley was their guy, the Lakers needed to blow him away with an offer, and they clearly did not. This saga also resurfaced a nagging question that management and ownership will inevitably have to face:

Are the Lakers just ... cheap?

The Hurley whiff could be a miscalculation of strategy, but it's possibly worse than that. The Lakers might not have had the offer-he-can't-refuse budget to hire the leader they so desperately needed in Hurley.

Many around the league look at the Lakers' primary ownership group and wonder if they can keep pace with the newer wave of billionaires investing in NBA franchises.

Financial Realities

The Lakers weren't cheap when they acquired Anthony Davis in 2019 via a trade with the New Orleans Pelicans. They set the market for a star player at a time when teams were hoarding first-round picks. The Lakers sent nearly every pick they had to offer, along with a lengthy list of players, including Brandon Ingram, Lonzo Ball and Josh Hart.

Was it an overpay? The Lakers believe their 2019-20 title justified the price.

The Lakers also weren't cheap when they traded for Russell Westbrook, adding one of the highest-paid players in the league at the time to pair with the expensive contracts of LeBron James and Davis.

It was a terrible basketball decision, of course. But cheap? No.

The NBA's collective bargaining agreement, revenue-sharing program and other rules work to ensure that teams can't buy titles outright. The Golden State Warriors, Phoenix Suns and Los Angeles Clippers have the highest payrolls this season, but none advanced past the first round in the playoffs. Meanwhile, the Indiana Pacers got to the Eastern Conference Finals with one of the smaller budgets this season.

The Boston Celtics are above the luxury-tax threshold, but their NBA Finals opponent, the Dallas Mavericks, are not.

The Buss family—led by governor Jeanie Buss—doesn't even have the best financial resources in their own city, thanks to Clippers owner Steve Ballmer and his estimated $126 billion net worth.

But none of the other 28 franchises can match Ballmer's wealth. And the Clippers have a hard time matching the league where it counts, having yet to win a championship.

The fact that the wealthiest owners aren't guaranteed titles is, in part, why the NBA works as an institution. The Lakers may not have the same bankroll as others, but the brand itself is among the most popular in the league, and the team doesn't need to rely on ownership to infuse funds to thrive.

Dating back to the late Jerry Buss, who purchased the team in 1979, the franchise has historically prioritized investing in players more than management and coaching. That shifted to an extent in 1999, when the team hired head coach Phil Jackson to get Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal over the hump (which touches on the issue at hand).

But the Lakers are a repeat tax offender this season, their fourth straight year in the tax, and they have been over the cap in seven of the last 13 years (with the dip corresponding to the rebuilding years after Bryant's Achilles' injury). While they haven't gone deep into the tax like the Warriors and Clippers, they have as many titles as the other two over the last handful of years (one for the Warriors in 2022).

The Lakers have made some gross miscalculations in recent years, but flat-out "cheap" in roster construction? That hasn't been the issue.

No Salary Cap on Staffing

The Hurley offer looks like history repeating itself. The NBA has many rules on how teams can build out rosters, but it doesn't have any limits on staffing expenditures.

Buss preferred to invest the team's money in players, but he also underpaid Jerry West, which (in part) led to the loss of one of the best front-office minds in the industry. The Jackson hiring for five years and $30 million was the right change-of-course move that paid dividends.

Today's Lakers didn't go all-in for Hurley when facing what could be the final run of James' career (assuming he opts in or re-signs this summer). Despite James' endorsement, the franchise also hesitated while negotiating with Ty Lue in 2019 because he wanted a longer deal than the Lakers were willing to give.

Lue is widely respected as one of the league's top coaches, but the financial commitment was the hurdle. If the answer was fear that he might not work out and the team would be locked in too long at a high salary, that's where wealthier ownership won't hesitate. In the worst-case scenario, fire the guy and pay him what he's owed.

The Phoenix Suns will pay the recently fired Frank Vogel for another four years not to coach. The Lakers, meanwhile, hired Vogel in 2019 on a shorter deal and fired him in 2022 despite having won a title in 2020.

If Vogel was the right hire and the Westbrook trade was the championship killer, then the issue isn't cheapness. It's simple basketball decision-making. If Lue was the one to pay, then yes, the team was too spendthrift in the moment.

The general opinion around the league is that the Lakers have a very frugal front office. The Clippers spare no expense with a massive staff, but the Lakers' sparse front office lacks common features, such as a pro personnel department. Outside of the scouting department for the draft, L.A. doesn't have scouts spread throughout the league watching NBA talent on a nightly basis in person like other franchises.

Still, a Lakers fan might ask, "Well, what has that big budget done for the Clippers?"

That's a fair rebuttal. The Clippers have nothing close to the hardware the Lakers can boast. The old-school Dr. Buss way of running a team is almost unparalleled in championship riches, but the Lakers of 2024 still don't have a coach, and frugality got in the way.

Hurley may have wanted to stay in Connecticut, but the Lakers chose not to push the envelope. While media reports often lack context or full details of an offer, L.A.'s starting number wasn't enough for Hurley to come back to try to negotiate it up.

Path Forward

The Lakers could now return to the idea of hiring JJ Redick to lead his podcast partner and Co., or choose James Borrego. Or find another answer entirely.

James needs to decide his future, with the most likely outcome being a three-year deal in Los Angeles. He's the oldest player in the league, and L.A. may never solve the Nikola Jokić/Denver Nuggets problem while the three-time MVP is in his prime.

But finding the right coach to guide both the front office on personnel decisions and the team on the floor is a must.

Most NBA teams will aspire to stay below the second apron this offseason to avoid increasingly restrictive penalties. Even the deep-pocketed Clippers haven't extended Paul George, and Joe Lacob's Warriors may not pay Klay Thompson what he seeks. The economic climate of the league is shifting, and the Lakers are not at a significant disadvantage.

The Lakers have never been "cheap" with star players, but they need to join the modern NBA with their infrastructure. If their current state of affairs is a conscious choice, that's one problem. If they can't afford to pay top-dollar for a front office and coaching staff, that's another altogether.