LakersGround.net :: View topic - Ex-Laker Derek Fisher Fired as Knick Coach

Ex-Laker Derek Fisher Fired as Knick Coach
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15 Next

LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

wolfpaclaker
Retired Number

Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58334

Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:17 pm Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:

wolfpaclaker wrote:

Don't think it's about the lottery pick.
Think it's about Kobe and also giving a guy a 4 year deal and being happy that he's giving PT to Randle, Russ and JC.
They gave D'Antoni 3 years, worked only 2.
They gave Brown 4 years, only worked 1.
They may just want to give the guy the year to see what he does.

Not every owner is like Dolan in that they want to pay guys for NOT working for them. Byron is making 4 million a year I think. 4 more million in guaranteed money next year. He's Kobe's guy in the KFT. I don't think it's any deeper than that as to why he isn't fired.

And it's sadly pathetic that we have to keep Scott for Kobe. Really sad.

I don't think it would be any better with D'Antoni or any coach who didn't have the ability of a Pop or Phil.

Kobe would be out there ignoring D'Antoni and they'd be a huge division within the team of -Kobe, his guys and what he wanted to do vs D'Antoni's plans - and the media would be roasting D'Antoni for what he wasn't doing (Giving Kobe the send off he wanted). Our kids would probably love MDA and hence more division.

Would we have a few more wins with MDA or dare I even say Mike Brown? Yes. Would Kobe have been likely giving death stares or having media battles with the coach in the press in his last season and a media circus around the coaching situation? Yes too.

The Lakers shot the whole media circus thing around the coach down with hiring Byron. Virtually no one complains now. No one. And they fully well know in a year at latest, a new coach will be taking over, right when Russ is ready to break out. I don't think any coach would have made Russ a star this season. In a year? A new coach coming in will make a world of difference.

Don't get me wrong. In normal circumstances, Byron or any coach with his record with a team like this is GONE. But these aren't normal circumstances. This is part of why I was upset in 2013. The Lakers let Dwight walk, without wiling to even consider not having Kobe in their plans or D'Antoni. They just didn't do it. They awarded him with a huge contract after that - one that wasn't reasonable to his level at the time. It's what they've done. To their credit, they're seeing all the way out. With major class. My respect for Jim, Jeannie, Mitch and all involved has increased not decreased. This is a class organization doing a class thing. Few see it that way though.

yinoma2001
Retired Number

Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:02 pm Post subject:

wolfpaclaker wrote:

yinoma2001 wrote:

wolfpaclaker wrote:

And it's sadly pathetic that we have to keep Scott for Kobe. Really sad.

This is beautiful and all but has nothing to do with Byron's incompetence. The KFT could continue on with an interim coach who isn't hopelessly out of touch with modern basketball and is so stubborn and prideful. Scott is just a festering wound that won't be addressed.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals

RestEasyBlackMamba
Star Player

Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 3061

Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:18 pm Post subject:

They should hire him on TWC, rate have him on there than coaching the Lakers

LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player

Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16128

Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:36 pm Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:

ocho wrote:

LongBeachPoly wrote:

ocho wrote:

LongBeachPoly wrote:

ocho wrote:

LongBeachPoly wrote:

ocho wrote:

LongBeachPoly wrote:

ocho wrote:

Dolan has now invested $85M in Jackson and Fisher, and that's not including the next coach's salary. Hard to believe he's pleased with the results.

they are happy with Porzingis?

That's a lot of money to take the best guy on the board.

Let's see, Phil makes $12 mil a year. This is his 2nd year so $24 mil for Phil.

Fisher makes $5 mil a year, this is his 2nd year so $10 mil for Fisher.

$34 mil so far spent and they get Porzingis out of it.

I've seen worse....

You may have seen worse, but that doesn't mean it has been good. The year they hired Phil they shaved 20 wins off the previous years total. He's going to miss the playoffs for the 2nd straight season. He larded their books up with middling talent. The lone bright spot is Porzingis, who is awesome, but it wasn't a big gamble even if a lot of the mocks assumed Phil would pick someone more "ready" like Winslow (who slipped all the way to 10). Porzingis was strongly considered at #2 and #3, so he's not a reach at #4. Chad Ford even reported he was being looked at for #1, but he's Chad Ford so we'll let that slide. Fact is they sunk a lot of money into Phil and Fish. One of them is already gone after less than 2 seasons into a 5 year deal. Perhaps he turns things around in the next few seasons, but his options to improve are somewhat limited. The best way to improve the team is to trade Melo, which they can't do because they gave him a no-trade clause. They don't have their 1st round pick this year (not Phil's fault), nor do they have a full max contract slot to offer FAs. I think if you had invested $85M in these guys I'm fairly confident you wouldn't be feeling great about your investment.

Yeah, you talk about how Phil has limited moves he can make, then you ask "I think if you had invested $85M in these guys I'm fairly confident you wouldn't be feeling great about your investment."

Can you expect more by paying more to a person? If Phil came into a situation with limited moves that he could make, should the Knicks expect more by paying him $12 mil a year? Does paying Phil $12 mil a year magically open up more moves that he can make? He came into his first offseason with no first rd draft pick and no salary cap room correct? He also had limited tradeable assets on the roster?

Why do you keep using the $85 mil figure though? Doesn't Phil have 3 more years to prove himself?

Why does it matter how big of a gamble Porzingis was? Does that matter?

The question is, if they stayed with the old GM or hired someone else, would they have Porzingis?

I don't know, maybe, maybe not. Maybe they win more games and aren't in position to draft Porzingis.

The thing is, they have Porzingis now.

So far, it's cost them 2 years salary with Phil and 2 years salary with Fisher - $34 mil total.

It could be better, it could be worse.

The Knicks were in bad shape. The Knicks haven't been relevant in awhile. They haven't had a promising rookie in awhile. They've wasted alot of money over the years.

If the Knicks are highly disappointed in the 2 years under Phil Jackson, I don't know what it was that they were expecting.

Coming out of 2 years with a promising big man rookie is something to build on though.

He came into a tough situation, but he hasn't really made it better. If we're being fair, just being in the position to draft Porzingis was dumb luck. Phil's stated expectation before that season was to make the playoffs and he constructed a team with that goal in mind. He didn't expect them to be the 2nd worst team in the league. Porzingis is a nice consolation prize, but a lot of the reason they lack flexibility is because of the moves Phil made, not the previous regime. They get credit for the horrible Bargnani trade that cost them this year's pick but Phil gave Carmelo $124M with a no trade clause, traded for Calderon, and gave a bunch of money to Lopez and Afflalo. He's yet to make the playoffs. He has had to fire his hand picked coach less than 2 seasons after hiring him. We're 2 years into this thing and I'm seeing a lot more bad moves than good ones. Things can change and he has a few more years on his deal to keep turning things around, but reports are he may have his eyes on another job in LA and it's difficult to see how they will continue to improve with limited cap flex and Melo's immovable deal. If he can find an amenable trade partner that gets Melo's blessing that's a good start.

ok.

How sure are you that re-signing Melo wasn't an ownership decision?

Because Dolan and Phil have gone to great lengths to explain to the public that Phil is running the show and Dolan isn't involved and I don't think we've received any evidence that contradicts that. I don't even think Dolan was at the meetings when they were courting Melo.

ok. I was under the impression that Phil doesn't love Melo for the triangle.

Anyways, I edited my earlier post, I'll repost it here:

Also, if this discussion started off with how unhappy ownership is with their investment in Phil..... then why does it matter if Phil landed Porzingis by luck or skill?

Does ownership care how they got Porzingis? Or does it only matter that they have Porzingis?

If you're a Knicks fan, if you have a choice, would you rather:

1) Go back to Mar 2014 and hire someone else and let the chips fall where they may; or

2) Roll with what you have right now under Phil and you have Porzingis in the bag

Which would you choose?

Yeah, I never did get an answer from you to this question.

If you're a Knick's fan/owner and you had a choice, would you rather:

1) Go back to Mar 2014 and hire someone else; or
2) Stick w/ Phil right now and you also get to keep Porzingis.

Drifts
Retired Number

Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Posts: 28374

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 12:27 am Post subject:

it was clear from the get go that Fish wasn't going to be any better... but good drafting by the Knicks last year though. _________________ "Now, if life is coffee, then the jobs, money & position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold & contain life, but the quality of life doesn't change. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee in it."

tox
Franchise Player

Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 12:45 am Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:

tox wrote:

LongBeachPoly wrote:

tox wrote:

LongBeachPoly wrote:

ocho wrote:

LongBeachPoly wrote:

ocho wrote:

Dolan has now invested $85M in Jackson and Fisher, and that's not including the next coach's salary. Hard to believe he's pleased with the results.

they are happy with Porzingis?

That's a lot of money to take the best guy on the board.

At #4, anyone would have taken Porzingis. That was a no brainer. Especially after you saw Mudiay's workout (assuming his NY workout was similar to the brickfest in LA). Are we going to credit Wolves management for drafting KAT as well?

OK. Yeah, I really didn't get that at all.

I remember alot of pressure on NY to trade the pick for a veteran. I didn't get that Porzingis was a slam dunk no brainer pick.

Now to compare KAT to Porzingis, yeah I have no comment on that.

Maybe I'm remembering things wrong, forgive me.

link

2015 NBA mock draft: The Knicks' decision at No. 4 will have a domino effect

Mocked:

4. New York Knicks - Justise Winslow, SF, Duke

This is where the draft gets interesting, because the Knicks can go a number of different ways with this pick. Willie Cauley-Stein could help fix a defense that was the third worst in the NBA last season. Emmanuel Mudiay has an NBA-ready body and could have the highest upside of any player available. Duke's Winslow would finally give New York a solid two-way player and force Carmelo Anthony to move to power forward, where he's been more effective in the past.

There's no wrong answer here, but the effect Winslow could have on the rest of the roster makes him the most appealing pick. The Knicks still have a long way to go, but in Winslow they should find a starter on the wing for a decade.

CBS Sports mock draft

4. NEW YORK KNICKS
Justise Winslow, SF, Duke: The Knicks are the team in the top-five most likely to trade down. If that's the case, look for a team moving up to target either Winslow (who would likely be a fit at No. 5 with Orlando) or Emmanuel Mudiay (who probably won't get past the Kings at No. 6). But if they do stay here, Winslow makes a great deal of sense as a player that could fit perfectly with Carmelo Anthony on both ends of the floor. Still, this is another roster that is extremely low on talent, so any of Winslow, Mudiay, Willie Cauley-Stein, Porzingis and Hezonja will likely be in play at No. 4, as the Knicks still aren't sure which direction they're going to go in.

Mock Draft 3.0

1.Minnesota Timberwolves - Karl-Anthony Towns, F, Kentucky

Unchanged from the previous mock. Even if he doesn’t pan out to be a star, Towns will be a consistent starter in the league due to his size and strength on the boards as well as his ability to defend and block shots.

2.L.A. Lakers - Jahlil Okafor, C, Duke

Had Mudiay here last time, and he’s still the best guard prospect in this draft, but Okafor gives L.A. the inside scoring presence it missed immediately after Gasol left.

3.Philadelphia 76ers – Emmanuel Mudiay, PG, China

A powerful slashing guard who’s jump shot should improve unlike Michael Carter Williams. Mudiay’s the right talent to pair with big men Nerlens Noel and Joel Embiid. But Porzingis could be in play here as well.

4.New York Knicks – D’Angelo Russell, PG, Ohio State

If the goal is to win right now with Carmelo Anthony, then adding a point guard who can shoot three and can get creative on the fast break or in the half-court is a no-brainer for the Knicks. That’s Russell, who won’t take shots away from Anthony.

5.Orlando Magic – Justise Winslow, F, Duke

Winslow will form a nice scoring trio with Victor Oladipo and Elfrid Payton, while helping out on defense on the perimeter and the frontcourt.

6.Sacramento Kings - Mario Hezonja, SG, Croatia

Might seem like a reach, but Hezonja’s a lights out shooter with playmaking abilities. The Kings need players who can space the floor for DeMarcus Cousins and then get out of his way.

7.Denver Nuggets –Kristaps Porzingis, PF, Latvia

Denver’s actively shopping this pick, but if Porzingis is here it's reasonable they keep it. He and Danilo Galinari, with Ty Lawson at the point, could be a headache to guard. He also provides some interior defense, but needs to add upper-body strength.

Knicks Mock draft

4. Knicks: Willie Cauley-Stein, C Kentucky
HT: 7'0" | WT: 240 lbs | AGE: 21

Knicks fans boo Porzingis selection

Stephen A. Smith on the Porzingis pick

That's great, but there's a very distinct reason that the Lakers considered Porzingis at #2 when no one, fans or sportswriters, thought it was a question for them.

Front offices actually got to scout Porzingis and see why he was so hyped. There were a ton of naysayers on Porzingis's game, but most of them weren't people who actually saw him play. I don't like him, but I believe Chad Ford when he said Porzingis rocketed up draft boards after workouts. I remember he had tons of quotes about it, and in hindsight we can see the same was true for the Lakers (on their feelings for Porzingis).

So the answer is yes, at #4, it was an obvious choice. Maybe to laymen and amateur writers it was up for question, but not to front offices. Did any sportswriter in the know (not a layman speculating on SB Nation) predict Porzingis falling out of the Top 4? I don't remember it.

ok, I'll take your word for it.

Porzingis was as much of a no-brainer as Towns.

Towns was a no-brainer to front offices and laymen

Porzingis was a no-brainer to front offices only, not the laymen.

Got it.

Now, back to your original comment "anyone would have taken Porzingis," I guess this universe of "anyone" includes all the front offices plus yourself minus laymen?

Anyone privy to the workouts / resources that front offices had, absolutely. And that's the thing, the only relevant people are those that would have been in Phil's place, which is why I'm not giving him much credit.

And no, as a matter of fact, I didn't want Porzingis either, just vaguely based on what I had read/ heard (I'm not a scout). I just wasn't fool enough to ignore how Porzingis had shot up all the FO's draft boards and how every FO was impressed with him. When I read how the Lakers were considering him at #2, and by the time the draft came around, it became pretty clear that the consensus Top 4 was KAT, DLO, Oak, and KP.

Now in retrospect, hearing how PHI really wanted to workout with him but they refused to meet him... how the Lakers were tempted to draft him at #2 (and had him above Oak at #3); it's become even clearer that among FO KP clearly separated himself from WCS, Mudiay, Kaminsky, and Winslow (the four guys I remember the Knicks being interested in).

LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player

Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16128

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:37 am Post subject:

tox wrote:

Yeah, you use alot of ambiguous/interchangeable terms:

1) first, there's "anyone" would have taken Porzingis

Quote:

At #4, anyone would have taken Porzingis. That was a no brainer.

2) then you distinguished fans or sportswriters from front offices:

Quote:

3) then you introduced the term laymen, which I'm assuming includes you and I?

4) you've also confusingly categorized writers into 3 categories: amateur writers on SB Nation vs. sportswriter vs. sportswriter in the know.

Ambiguously, sometimes you group sportswriters and fans together distinguishing them from front offices (as seen above)

Other times, (as seen below) you would give sportswriters credence if they are sportswriters who are "in the know."

Quote:

Maybe to laymen and amateur writers it was up for question, but not to front offices. Did any sportswriter in the know (not a layman speculating on SB Nation) predict Porzingis falling out of the Top 4? I don't remember it.

5) you also give credence to Porzingis shooting up FO draft boards (I'm not sure where these FO draft boards are posted? Is it on the laymen, amateur draft boards or the mock drafts by sportswriters "in the know?")

Quote:

I just wasn't fool enough to ignore how Porzingis had shot up all the FO's draft boards and how every FO was impressed with him.

Anyways, I do have an article. Not sure how to classify it in your terms. Is it by a layman, amateur writer, mere sportswriter or sportswriter "in the know?" Is it written by someone that's "privy" to the workouts? Yeah, I'm not sure because you've introduced so MANY terms. But here it is:

Quote:

Celtics Tried To Use Hornets' No. 9 Pick To Trade Up With Knicks To No. 4
DEC 1, 2015 11:23 AM

In last year's draft, the Boston Celtics initially pursued a trade for the Charlotte Hornets' No. 9 pick with the idea of sending it to the Knicks, along with Boston's No. 15 pick to move up to No. 4.

The Celtics were targeting Justise Winslow at No. 4, just as they were at No. 9.

Charlotte refused the pitches from the Celtics and ended up taking Frank Kaminsky, while Kristaps Porzingis went No. 4 overall to the Knicks.

The Miami Heat selected Winslow with the 10th overall pick.

"We listened," Steve Mills says. "But we were never close."

ZACH LOWE/ESPN

tox
Franchise Player

Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:23 am Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:

tox wrote:

Yeah, you use alot of ambiguous/interchangeable terms:

1) first, there's "anyone" would have taken Porzingis

Quote:

At #4, anyone would have taken Porzingis. That was a no brainer.

2) then you distinguished fans or sportswriters from front offices:

Quote:

3) then you introduced the term laymen, which I'm assuming includes you and I?

4) you also categorized writers into 2 categories: amateur writers on SB Nation vs. sportswriter in the know

Quote:

I just wasn't fool enough to ignore how Porzingis had shot up all the FO's draft boards and how every FO was impressed with him.

Anyways, I do have an article. Not sure how to classify it in your terms. Is it by a layman, amateur writer, or sportswriter in the know? Is it written by someone that's "privy" to the workouts? Yeah, I'm not sure because you've introduced so MANY terms. But here it is:

Quote:

I'm going to assume you're willfully ignorant when it comes to nitpicking on my language. It's pretty damn obvious what I mean by layperson, sportswriter, FO, etc. Use your brain.

And your point is taken. It does look like at least one FO guy wasn't enamored Porzingis enough to pick him in the top 4. So fair enough.

I'm curious (and I don't mean this with any trace of sarcasm) if any other FO guys would have picked someone besides KP at #4. To my knowledge, Minny, LA, NY, and ORL would have (PHI wanted badly to work him out but they declined so let's ignore them). Combine that with buzz from Ford and anonymous scouts/ GMs (that he's actually a Top-2 prospect) and I assumed it was unanimous, but clearly not (though who knows if Boston's the exception or not --- their drafting has not impressed so perhaps it's just their scouting corps).

I still don't think a single org's preference for Winslow over Porzingis makes Phil's draft choice that impressive. Porzingis by most (not all

) accounts was still generally considered the best talent at #4. But certainly I was wrong here and I can give Phil a bit more credit on his scouting if the choice wasn't so cut-and-dry as I had thought.

LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player

Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16128

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:04 am Post subject:

tox wrote:

I'm going to assume you're willfully ignorant when it comes to nitpicking on my language. It's pretty damn obvious what I mean by layperson, sportswriter, FO, etc. Use your brain.

Just to keep it civil, I really don't know how to approach it anymore. Some posters, when you assume what they meant - you get defensive responses such as "don't put words in my mouth. Show me a quote of where I said exactly that."

Some posters, such as yourself, expect people to "use your brain" and just assume what they meant and not nitpick.

So, I really don't know how to approach it. To be on the safe side, I just assume people mean exactly what they type but honestly, I couldn't really distinguish all of your different categories.

For instance, I brought up Stephen A. Smith in my initial post and you dismissed that but you brought up Chad Ford.

Now, to me, Stephen A. Smith is a sportswriter so maybe Chad Ford falls under your sportswriter "in the know" category.

I really couldn't tell.

tox wrote:

I still don't think a single org's preference for Winslow over Porzingis makes Phil's draft choice that impressive. Porzingis by most (not all

Yeah, executives do weird stuff in the draft. Look at Jordan. Sometimes, I give credit just for not making a dumb decision. Look at the Cavs drafting Anthony Bennett. Who saw that coming?

tox
Franchise Player

Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:12 am Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:

tox wrote:

I'm going to assume you're willfully ignorant when it comes to nitpicking on my language. It's pretty damn obvious what I mean by layperson, sportswriter, FO, etc. Use your brain.

I'm not going to philosophize about LG's posting tendencies; I haven't been here long enough and frankly don't care enough. To answer your question, I didn't pay attention to what you linked when it was SAS. He might be able to break a story if he has sources, but nothing he has said leads me to believe he would understand scouting. He just responds based on emotions, like most people in the sports world.

For me, there are 4 relevant categories of people when it comes to scouting:
Front Offices
Professional scouts
Sportswriters with access to the above two (they might have their own scouting abilities)
Laypeople (when it comes to scouting)

And yes, SAS, you, and I are laypeople. Ford, as much as I dislike his lack of integrity, is certainly someone with access to the opinion of FOs.

LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player

Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16128

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:33 am Post subject:

tox wrote:

LongBeachPoly wrote:

tox wrote:

I'm going to assume you're willfully ignorant when it comes to nitpicking on my language. It's pretty damn obvious what I mean by layperson, sportswriter, FO, etc. Use your brain.

Yeah, these are extremely specific categories that you shouldn't expect everyone to be able to accurately "assume" what you mean, especially when you use your words interchangeably.

i.e. laymen vs. amateur writers vs sportswriters vs sportswriters in the know

SAS is obviously not an amateur writer. He's a sportswriter. I wouldn't have guessed you'd classify him as a layman.

tox
Franchise Player

Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:17 am Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:

tox wrote:

LongBeachPoly wrote:

tox wrote:

I'm going to assume you're willfully ignorant when it comes to nitpicking on my language. It's pretty damn obvious what I mean by layperson, sportswriter, FO, etc. Use your brain.

A simple question would clarify any confusing word choice, so I don't see what the problem is.

As for the SAS thing, that's my fault. I didn't realize people actually take his opinions on scouting (especially international scouting) seriously. I do not, and so to me it was obvious why I'd draw a distinction between Ford (whom I do not like but can concede knows the game) and Smith. That's a faulty assumption on my part. If that's what you were hung up on then my apologies.

In any case this conversation has run its course so let's just end it here.

LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player

Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16128

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:41 am Post subject:

Quote:

A simple question would clarify any confusing word choice, so I don't see what the problem is.

Right, which I tried to ask and get you to clarify, to which you responded:

Quote:

I'm going to assume you're willfully ignorant when it comes to nitpicking on my language. It's pretty damn obvious what I mean by layperson, sportswriter, FO, etc. Use your brain.

Quote:

As for the SAS thing, that's my fault. I didn't realize people actually take his opinions on scouting (especially international scouting) seriously.

Well, you quoted "At #4, anyone would have taken Porzingis. That was a no brainer."

SAS is a part of the universe of anyone.

Quote:

I do not, and so to me it was obvious why I'd draw a distinction between Ford (whom I do not like but can concede knows the game) and Smith. That's a faulty assumption on my part.

How did you assume something of which you weren't even aware of?

Quote:

I didn't pay attention to what you linked when it was SAS.

Quote:

In any case this conversation has run its course so let's just end it here.

Agreed

fiendishoc
Star Player

Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:15 am Post subject:

ANYONE?? Do you mean to say MUDIAY'S MOTHER would have taken Porzingis?? Do you???

yinoma2001
Retired Number

Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:20 am Post subject:

What is going on here in this thread??? _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals

GoldenThroat
Moderator

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:23 am Post subject:

Frank Isola (NY Daily News): 4th link New York Post: 5th link Draft Express: 4th link USA Today: 5th link Sporting News: 5th link Sam Vecenie: 5th link Garry Parrish: 3rd link Zach Harper: 3rd link nbadraft.net: 5th link Sports Illustrated: 4th link Washington Post: 4th link Huffington Post: 5th link Walter Football: 5th link ^Porzingis' position in various mock drafts. No need for a globalized or semantical argument here. As an aggregate, he was the favorite to be selected 4th in the draft.

yinoma2001
Retired Number

Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:24 am Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:

Frank Isola (NY Daily News): 4th link
New York Post: 5th link
Draft Express: 4th link
USA Today: 5th link
Sporting News: 5th link
Sam Vecenie: 5th link
Garry Parrish: 3rd link
Zach Harper: 3rd link
nbadraft.net: 5th link
Sports Illustrated: 4th link
Washington Post: 4th link
Huffington Post: 5th link
Walter Football: 5th link

^Porzingis' position in various mock drafts. No need for a globalized or semantical argument here. As an aggregate, he was the favorite to be selected 4th in the draft.

4.38 to be exact based on your selection.

_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals

Fastbreak32
Star Player

Joined: 11 Oct 2011
Posts: 4746

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:31 am Post subject:

fiendishoc wrote:

ANYONE?? Do you mean to say MUDIAY'S MOTHER would have taken Porzingis?? Do you???

We have no way of knowing. We don't have the technology.
_________________
LeBron, AD, & _________. Stay tuned.

"...there was a time when the Israelites were wandering in the desert and all of a sudden, bread came down from heaven,” Pelinka said. “That’s kind of what today feels like for us to have KCP join.”

venturalakersfan
Retired Number

Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144460
Location: The Gold Coast

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:09 am Post subject:

Since Towns was out of reach, the Lakers had their choice down to Russell or Porzingis. Obviously we know which way they went. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.

fiendishoc
Star Player

Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:13 am Post subject:

Not just the Lakers but Orlando and Sacramento would have also taken KP had they been in the Knicks position, based on where he was in their draft boards.

tox
Franchise Player

Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:44 pm Post subject:

How do you actually get access to these draft boards? I've heard people say the same about Randle & Smart (Randle was higher than Smart on the Lakers' draft boards). Just catching the right interviews?

silkwilkes
Star Player

Joined: 15 Jul 2002
Posts: 6937
Location: searching for the mojo of Dr. Buss

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:55 pm Post subject:

Actually, the obvious choice was Okafor at #2. Then you had Russell, Mudiay and Porzingis. Russell was everyone's favorite after KAT tbh... pretty much a consensus out there. Porzingis is a big man and big men always adapt easier to the NBA because they don't have to do as many things as a guard does. You can't judge any rookie until after their 3rd year imo. _________________ "He may say it's not you, it's him.... but it's really you."

fiendishoc
Star Player

Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:00 am Post subject:

tox wrote:

How do you actually get access to these draft boards? I've heard people say the same about Randle & Smart (Randle was higher than Smart on the Lakers' draft boards).

Just catching the right interviews?

Just skimming the local newspapers when x draft pick comes to town.

venturalakersfan
Retired Number

Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144460
Location: The Gold Coast

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:59 am Post subject:

silkwilkes wrote:

Actually, the obvious choice was Okafor at #2. Then you had Russell, Mudiay and Porzingis. Russell was everyone's favorite after KAT tbh... pretty much a consensus out there. Porzingis is a big man and big men always adapt easier to the NBA because they don't have to do as many things as a guard does.

You can't judge any rookie until after their 3rd year imo.

Exactly.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.

greenfrog
Retired Number

Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:02 am Post subject:

So we needed 3 years to know that Evan Turner wasn't very good?

Display posts from previous:

LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge

All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15 Next

Page 13 of 15

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.

We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.