View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
GoldenThroat Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 37474
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vishnu wrote: | Other teams don't look at our players as highly as we do as Laker fans. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if many teams thought most if not all of our guys are big disappointments, at least the ones drafted in the lottery. We don't get to hear what other GMs think around the league, but a couple listens to national sports commentators would give you the idea that all our guys suck. The pick would give teams the opportunity to do what they wanted. That doesn't even mention the value more years on a rookie contract has.
Personally I wouldn't have #3 over Russell or Ingram. I believe other GMs do though. |
Yeah, my personal board would be:
1) #1 pick
2) Russell
3) #2 pick
4) #3 pick
5) Ingram
6) Randle
7) Zubac
8) Nance
9) Clarkson
but it doesn't matter what I think. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
adkindo Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:37 pm Post subject: Re: Rate Our Young Core (Trade Asset-Wise) |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | For purposes of this thread let's rate picks 1-3 too. Think from the mindset of another team looking at our young players. For me:
1. #1 pick
2. Ingram
3. #2 pick
4. DLo
5. #3 pick
6. Jules
7. Zub
8. Nance
9. Jc
10. Nwaba. |
I would agree, except I would move JC up to 6 or 7...but ahead of Julius and Nance based on situation. JC is on a moderate contract for 3 more years....trading for Julius just to give him a big contract lowers the value significantly....similar to Noel....even though I agree Randle is likely seen as more talented or higher ceiling.
I would probably go:
1. #1 pick
2. Ingram
3. #2 pick
4. DLo
5. #3 pick
6. JC
7. Nance
8. Zubac
9. Randle
10. Nwaba |
|
Back to top |
|
|
january Starting Rotation
Joined: 01 Nov 2016 Posts: 106
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. #1
2-3. Russell (@) Ingram
4, #2
5. #3
----------------
6. Zubac
7. Nance
8, Randle
9. #28
10. Clarkson
11. #33 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Chase.button07 Star Player
Joined: 19 Feb 2017 Posts: 4996
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
my personal board:
1) #1 pick
2) Ingram
3) #2 pick
4) #3 pick
5) Russell
6) Clarkson
7) Zubac
8) Nance
9) Randle |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRoost Star Player
Joined: 21 Mar 2017 Posts: 4791
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My top 10
1. Ingram
2. # 1 pick
BIG GAP
3. #2 pick
4. # 3 pick
5. Zubac
BIGGER GAP
6. DLo
7. Randle
8. Nance
9. Nwaba
10. Clarkson |
|
Back to top |
|
|
The Logo Star Player
Joined: 25 Jul 2013 Posts: 9577 Location: Salem, OR
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CRoost wrote: | My top 10
1. Ingram
2. # 1 pick
BIG GAP
3. #2 pick
4. # 3 pick
5. Zubac
BIGGER GAP
6. DLo
7. Randle
8. Nance
9. Nwaba
10. Clarkson |
You think that there's a significant gap between Zubac and Russell? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Annihilator Star Player
Joined: 02 Jul 2001 Posts: 4035
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GoldenThroat wrote: | This is really a measure of value to other teams and perception, so I think our trade assets are:
1) #1 pick
2) #2 pick
3) #3 pick
4) Brandon Ingram
5) D'Angelo Russell
6) Ivica Zubac
7) Larry Nance
8) Julius Randle
9) Jordan Clarkson
Mind you, Randle's about to get paid, and Clarkson already has been. |
GT, are you trying to make the point that Clarkson might have **negative** trade value since his contract is for more than what he produces on the court? _________________ “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
--Anonymous |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Startrout Star Player
Joined: 06 Aug 2004 Posts: 2143
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
oldschool32 wrote: | 1.Ingram
2.Russell
3.Randle
4.Clarkson
5.#28
6.Zubac
7.Nance |
This is about how I see it as well. You could argue Zubac ahead of the #28. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fiendishoc Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GoldenThroat wrote: | Vishnu wrote: | Other teams don't look at our players as highly as we do as Laker fans. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if many teams thought most if not all of our guys are big disappointments, at least the ones drafted in the lottery. We don't get to hear what other GMs think around the league, but a couple listens to national sports commentators would give you the idea that all our guys suck. The pick would give teams the opportunity to do what they wanted. That doesn't even mention the value more years on a rookie contract has.
Personally I wouldn't have #3 over Russell or Ingram. I believe other GMs do though. |
Yeah, my personal board would be:
1) #1 pick
2) Russell
3) #2 pick
4) #3 pick
5) Ingram
6) Randle
7) Zubac
8) Nance
9) Clarkson
but it doesn't matter what I think. |
Yeah, this is pretty much how I would have it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 37474
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Logo wrote: | CRoost wrote: | My top 10
1. Ingram
2. # 1 pick
BIG GAP
3. #2 pick
4. # 3 pick
5. Zubac
BIGGER GAP
6. DLo
7. Randle
8. Nance
9. Nwaba
10. Clarkson |
You think that there's a significant gap between Zubac and Russell? |
I think he explicitly typed that out. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
greenfrog Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GoldenThroat wrote: | This is really a measure of value to other teams and perception, so I think our trade assets are:
1) #1 pick
2) #2 pick
3) #3 pick
4) Brandon Ingram
5) D'Angelo Russell
6) Ivica Zubac
7) Larry Nance
8) Julius Randle
9) Jordan Clarkson
Mind you, Randle's about to get paid, and Clarkson already has been. |
Now where does the 28th pick rank?
That's my personal list, FWIW. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Laker's Fan Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jun 2002 Posts: 12850
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Zub over Nance? _________________ Austin Reaves keeps his game tight, like Kobe Bryant on game night. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
matigol Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Oct 2012 Posts: 664
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
#1
Brandon Ingram
#2
D'angelo Russell
Julius Randle
#3
Ivica Zubac
Larry Nance Jr
Jordan Clarkson _________________ White guy to white guy alley oop |
|
Back to top |
|
|
2019 Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Dec 2014 Posts: 10804
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would say the general perception from the outside fans, media, and other GM's would look something like this:
#1
#2
Brandon Ingram
D'angelo Russell
#3
Julius Randle
Ivica Zubac
Larry Nance Jr
Jordan Clarkson |
|
Back to top |
|
|
crazylakerfan001 Starting Rotation
Joined: 14 Feb 2011 Posts: 999
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
assuming we lost our pick and a team offers us the #2 pick for DLO with fultz off the board, do we take it? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
crazylakerfan001 wrote: | assuming we lost our pick and a team offers us the #2 pick for DLO with fultz off the board, do we take it? |
Do we? Don't know. Should we? Probably not. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
2019 Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Dec 2014 Posts: 10804
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
crazylakerfan001 wrote: | So if a team offers the #2 pick for DLO and fultz is off the board do we take it? |
Basically Ball for DLO? I would not. I think DLO is/was a much better prospect than Ball. I could be wrong or just living in a world of bias but I genuinely believe in Russell.
Problem is the most everyone outside of this board seems to think Ball is the second coming of Magic and showtime and I fear Magic himself might fall into that hype. I think he'd do that trade given the opportunity. Hope I'm wrong there. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016 Posts: 7825 Location: Long Beach
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1
Ingram
2
3
Clarkson
Russell
Nance
Randle
Zu |
|
Back to top |
|
|
crazylakerfan001 Starting Rotation
Joined: 14 Feb 2011 Posts: 999
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
2019 wrote: | crazylakerfan001 wrote: | So if a team offers the #2 pick for DLO and fultz is off the board do we take it? |
Basically Ball for DLO? I would not. I think DLO is/was a much better prospect than Ball. I could be wrong or just living in a world of bias but I genuinely believe in Russell.
Problem is the most everyone outside of this board seems to think Ball is the second coming of Magic and showtime and I fear Magic himself might fall into that hype. I think he'd do that trade given the opportunity. Hope I'm wrong there. |
I'm with you, but It seems like everyone on this board ranks the #2 and #3 pick over DLO. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DShotMaker1824 Star Player
Joined: 16 Feb 2012 Posts: 8768
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chase.button07 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | I think of the current players Ingram will be the first player that is requested. Maybe it's a perception thing (I.e. Work ethic, humility, size, etc).
I also wonder too if Dlo/Jules either stay together in LA or will be traded together (they share agents). |
only untouchable if at all is Ingram. rest everybody can go |
I also share this mindset but it's to really get rid of Deng and Mosgov. _________________
"Through the legs to the left, through the legs to the right, we don't run them Laker plays, we just Kobe fadeaway..."
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
The Logo Star Player
Joined: 25 Jul 2013 Posts: 9577 Location: Salem, OR
|
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
GoldenThroat wrote: | The Logo wrote: | CRoost wrote: | My top 10
1. Ingram
2. # 1 pick
BIG GAP
3. #2 pick
4. # 3 pick
5. Zubac
BIGGER GAP
6. DLo
7. Randle
8. Nance
9. Nwaba
10. Clarkson |
You think that there's a significant gap between Zubac and Russell? |
I think he explicitly typed that out. |
I just find that hard to believe |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Wino Star Player
Joined: 07 Jun 2002 Posts: 9674 Location: San Diego
|
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Really, some people think that our #2 and #3 picks are more valuable than DLO to other teams?? Some of you actually think those picks are more valuable than Ingram to other teams??
WTF am I missing??
Based on the last couple of months, I think if Ingram was in this years draft, he would be the #1 pick.
I am convinced he will be a future all-star in this league. I think he has the biggest upside of anyone on our team.
Honestly, I think we should keep him and DLO, hopefully get a top 3 pick and keep it, then sign PG13 as a FA and trade two or three of our other assets for a solid 5th starter.
Maybe we end out with a team like:
Ball, DLO, PG13, Ingram and ???? not sure, Zubac as backup but we need a solid big man who can play great D. _________________ Never argue with stupid people! They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!! - Twain |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jakanzi Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Jan 2017 Posts: 206
|
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Vishnu wrote: | Other teams don't look at our players as highly as we do as Laker fans. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if many teams thought most, if not all, of our guys are big disappointments, at least the ones drafted in the lottery. We don't get to hear what other GMs think around the league, but a couple listens to national sports commentators would give you the idea that all our guys suck. The pick would give teams the opportunity to do what they wanted. That doesn't even mention the value more years on a rookie contract has.
Personally I wouldn't have #3 over Russell or Ingram. I believe other GMs do though. |
Zach Lowe did a feature on the Lakers earlier in the season and talked a bit in his podcast about what he heard from other executives around the league about the Laker young guys. And basically, just like with fans and the media, there was no consensus and opinions were all over the place.
It's not even that clear to me that Russell and Ingram are the top assets for everyone. Seems like a lifetime ago, but a month or two into the season Randle looked like our best young player and there are people who are still really high on him, including Lowe. I also thought Pop was most complimentary about Julius when he had a chance to coach him, D'Lo, and Ingram for team USA stuff over the summer. The bballbreakdown guy and RPM say our best young player is Nance.
Makes me wish there were just some way to fast forward and know who's right but that's sports for you. Everyone technically sees the same thing but comes away with different opinions and in the end pretty much everyone is wrong in some way. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RI Laker Star Player
Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 7148
|
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
BI
DLO
Our first if we keep it. I am not impressed with this draft but it would be nice having these pups on rookie contracts.
ZU because his value has gone up and potentially will sky rocket when he gets playing time next year.
Sorry, but the rest of our guys do not have real value. Nance has value to the team and is a keeper. JR is about to get paid and his value will diminish big time, and JC has a little value (because his contract did turn out to be team friendly). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Villain6Activated Star Player
Joined: 22 Dec 2011 Posts: 6697
|
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd take Brandon Ingram first in this upcoming draft even if I saw what I saw in the past season. Here's my personal rankings:
Brandon Ingram
#1
DLO
#2
#3
Ivica Zubac
Julius Randle
Larry Nance
Jordan Clarkson
I think Fultz ends being better then DLO and Lonzo is in the same tier as DLO _________________ “Life is too short. You have to keep it moving.” - Kobe |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|