They still won most of their games, but unconvincingly—over all, toward the end of February, they had given up more points than they’d scored. They’d suffered a number of humiliating blowouts. And whether or not they were actually any good, it looked clear that they were better without James. No one questioned that the team’s best player was now Luka Dončić, a perennial M.V.P. candidate. When Dončić and Austin Reaves—who had emerged in James’s absence as the team’s No. 2 option—played without James, the offense dazzled. (Defense was another story.) But when James joined them, the offense struggled, and when James was on the court with Dončić but not Reaves, it stunk. It’s true that these small playing-time samples can produce misleading results; it’s also true that the Lakers’ offense looked good when James played without Reaves and Dončić. Nonetheless, more and more people began to wonder if James’s time in Los Angeles was nearing its end. The Lakers were making no secret about their plans to build for the future around their younger stars, with or without James. Rumors flew that when his contract was up this summer, after the inevitable early-round playoff exit, James would bolt.