6th Pick vs Irving
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Kyle VS 6 pick
Yes
70%
 70%  [ 101 ]
No
29%
 29%  [ 43 ]
Total Votes : 144

Author Message
TheElectronica
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Jan 2010
Posts: 1392

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:03 pm    Post subject:

dao wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
dao wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
dao wrote:


Yuck. A 10.5 ppg role player that can't shoot FTs (which means he shouldn't really be playing in the 4th quarter of a tight playoff game) signing for 12-13m.That's the kind of deal that will kill your championship prospects for the foreseeable future. He's a great rebounder, but he sucks offensively and is a little overrated defensively (despite high bpg) as others have mentioned in this thread.


There won't be many choices to get an anchor. And you won't win without one.
The Heat win championships with a PF playing C and a SF playing PF.


So you are assuming we somehow get the best player in the game on the Lakers? I would be all for that, by the way. But minus that, the Heat aren't winning squat. The teams that give them trouble are teams with size as a result of them not having an anchor.
You said that teams don't win without an anchor, and I disproved the notion with an example. Explaining why you were wrong doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.

Generally teams that win have defensive anchors. Miami is similar to the Bulls in that their perimeter defense is so elite, they often don't need to rely on their bigs defensively to swat shots. They force enough turnovers and bad shots so that they can get by with Bosh.

However, it doesn't mean VLF is wrong. You are going to need elite defense to win. I'm in favor of bringing in Love because I think his offensive skill sets will make it so that you can get by with just a pure defender/athlete at the 5. It doesn't have to be Deandre, but Lakers are going to need a solid shot blocker unless they draft Wiggins and fill out their perimeter defense with above average defenders.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Jim99187
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 22138

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:18 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
Jim99187 wrote:

People like ventura see him block shots and run around & dunk.

Suddenly he is an elite defensive player. Watch them grt abuse again in the playoofs this yr

Want them to play warriors or memphis.

I would take love over deandre 100 times of 100


Jordan is the best anchor available in 2015, that is why I have been wanting him, I don't resort to fantasy moves like the Rockets trading Asik to us. Take Love, he is a good player, though his stats have been hollow to this point and he has also been injury prone. Just don't pretend to act like you care about defense. My original reason to want Jordan was with the assumption that we draft Randle or Parker.


Jordan is under contract while Asik is available & we have chances to get him as much as the 28 other teams.

just because I want Love doesn't mean I don't value defense. where did you get that from?

at least love puts up great stats on a bad team just like gasol did before coming here. even better then gasol actually.

your scrub Jordan should be a glorified role player and nothing else. no need to pay 13 or 16mil.

as per your assumption, you want to draft randle or parker and you say its a lottery.

so why not assume Embiid behind Love? thats what I would take in fantasy land evert day

Embiid & Love >>>>>>>>>>Scrub Jordan & randler/parker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:39 am    Post subject:

I disagree with the notion that Jordan isn't an offensive threat. He's a double digit scorer while using very few possessions and you don't have to run any plays for him to score. His ability to finish around the basket makes opposing bigs more reticent to help off of him, which in turn creates easier opportunities for penetrating guards. He also understands his limitations, which is part of the reason why he's so remarkably efficient from the field.

2nd in Total Rebound Percentage
3rd in Defensive Win Shares
4th in Block Percentage
4th in True Shooting Percentage
4th in Offensive Rating
9th in Overall Win Shares
9th in Wins Above Replacement
21st in Real Plus/Minus (T-2nd amongst centers)
Played in every game in the last two seasons.

By no means is he the only avenue that we should pursue in '15, but he's certainly not a scrub.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:57 am    Post subject:

dao wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
dao wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
dao wrote:


Yuck. A 10.5 ppg role player that can't shoot FTs (which means he shouldn't really be playing in the 4th quarter of a tight playoff game) signing for 12-13m.That's the kind of deal that will kill your championship prospects for the foreseeable future. He's a great rebounder, but he sucks offensively and is a little overrated defensively (despite high bpg) as others have mentioned in this thread.


There won't be many choices to get an anchor. And you won't win without one.
The Heat win championships with a PF playing C and a SF playing PF.


So you are assuming we somehow get the best player in the game on the Lakers? I would be all for that, by the way. But minus that, the Heat aren't winning squat. The teams that give them trouble are teams with size as a result of them not having an anchor.
You said that teams don't win without an anchor, and I disproved the notion with an example. Explaining why you were wrong doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.


Is this where you say you don't need a legit franchise superstar either because the Pistons won without one?

The Heat are an exception to the rule. The exception proves the rule.

You disproved nothing. Either you get an anchor, or, you have to make up for NOT having one through other means such as depth or crazy good talent elsewhere, etc.

It's like when someone says, "you need to save for retirement" or "you need to go to college". I'm sure you're the guy that isn't going to go to college or save for retirement because look, Zac Efron isn't saving for retirement and he never went to college so why should I? I disproved you!


Last edited by ringfinger on Mon Apr 14, 2014 9:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Jim99187
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 22138

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:59 am    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
I disagree with the notion that Jordan isn't an offensive threat. He's a double digit scorer while using very few possessions and you don't have to run any plays for him to score. His ability to finish around the basket makes opposing bigs more reticent to help off of him, which in turn creates easier opportunities for penetrating guards. He also understands his limitations, which is part of the reason why he's so remarkably efficient from the field.

2nd in Total Rebound Percentage
3rd in Defensive Win Shares
4th in Block Percentage
4th in True Shooting Percentage
4th in Offensive Rating
9th in Overall Win Shares
9th in Wins Above Replacement
21st in Real Plus/Minus (T-2nd amongst centers)
Played in every game in the last two seasons.

By no means is he the only avenue that we should pursue in '15, but he's certainly not a scrub.


its fine during the regular season. lets see how much he is valuable in the playoffs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GRE4T ONE
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 10 Jul 2010
Posts: 728

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 9:12 am    Post subject:

If the lakers had the #1 pick in the draft I would make this trade.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Chronicle
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 21 Jul 2012
Posts: 31930
Location: Manhattan

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 9:25 am    Post subject:

GRE4T ONE wrote:
If the lakers had the #1 pick in the draft I would make this trade.


lol
_________________
Kobe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Jim99187
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 22138

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 9:27 am    Post subject:

GRE4T ONE wrote:
If the lakers had the #1 pick in the draft I would make this trade.


i won't. after these guys are gone, I would:

Embiid
Wiggins
Parker
Exum
Smart
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TheElectronica
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Jan 2010
Posts: 1392

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:12 am    Post subject:

Jim99187 wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
I disagree with the notion that Jordan isn't an offensive threat. He's a double digit scorer while using very few possessions and you don't have to run any plays for him to score. His ability to finish around the basket makes opposing bigs more reticent to help off of him, which in turn creates easier opportunities for penetrating guards. He also understands his limitations, which is part of the reason why he's so remarkably efficient from the field.

2nd in Total Rebound Percentage
3rd in Defensive Win Shares
4th in Block Percentage
4th in True Shooting Percentage
4th in Offensive Rating
9th in Overall Win Shares
9th in Wins Above Replacement
21st in Real Plus/Minus (T-2nd amongst centers)
Played in every game in the last two seasons.

By no means is he the only avenue that we should pursue in '15, but he's certainly not a scrub.


its fine during the regular season. lets see how much he is valuable in the playoffs.

Dirk doesn't win without Tyson.

Having DJ patrol the perimeter allows the Clippers to play Crawford and Griffin extended minutes because neither are great defenders. Or even Redick, but he gives much more effort on the defensive end than given credit for. Just look at the Clippers and tell me who outside of Cp3 and DJ are solid defenders? Barnes has lost a step and even in his prime he wasn't a great man defender, just an annoyance. I'm not saying DJ is the most important player, but they don't reach top 3 in the competitive West without having Deandre.

His man defense isn't great yet and guys like Noah/Davis play much better pick and roll defense but he does swat at an elite level and can cover defensive lapses by guys like Crawford and Griffin. That's valuable and worth near max money in the NBA today simply because it allows you to march out 3-4 guys who are mediocre to poor defenders and not be punished repeatedly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
dao
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:31 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
dao wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
dao wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
dao wrote:


Yuck. A 10.5 ppg role player that can't shoot FTs (which means he shouldn't really be playing in the 4th quarter of a tight playoff game) signing for 12-13m.That's the kind of deal that will kill your championship prospects for the foreseeable future. He's a great rebounder, but he sucks offensively and is a little overrated defensively (despite high bpg) as others have mentioned in this thread.


There won't be many choices to get an anchor. And you won't win without one.
The Heat win championships with a PF playing C and a SF playing PF.


So you are assuming we somehow get the best player in the game on the Lakers? I would be all for that, by the way. But minus that, the Heat aren't winning squat. The teams that give them trouble are teams with size as a result of them not having an anchor.
You said that teams don't win without an anchor, and I disproved the notion with an example. Explaining why you were wrong doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.


Is this where you say you don't need a legit franchise superstar either because the Pistons won without one?

The Heat are an exception to the rule. The exception proves the rule.

You disproved nothing. Either you get an anchor, or, you have to make up for NOT having one through other means such as depth or crazy good talent elsewhere, etc.

It's like when someone says, "you need to save for retirement" or "you need to go to college". I'm sure you're the guy that isn't going to go to college or save for retirement because look, Zac Efron isn't saving for retirement and he never went to college so why should I? I disproved you!
Your analogy is off. He didn't say it's nice to have an anchor. He said that you can't win without an anchor. Pointing out that the 2 time defending champs win without one in the starting lineup disproves the statement.

Obviously an anchor is an important piece. An important role of a center is to be the defensive anchor, and obviously centers are very important. The point though is that you can't piss away 12-13 million on a guy like Jordan just to say you have an anchor. Acquiring stars like Love is more important than filling particular positions with role players.

As for the Pistons, they did not have a superstar, but they had 4 all star caliber players and 1 elite role player in their starting lineup. That's a star studded team.


Last edited by dao on Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:55 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
dao
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:35 am    Post subject:

TheElectronica wrote:
Jim99187 wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
I disagree with the notion that Jordan isn't an offensive threat. He's a double digit scorer while using very few possessions and you don't have to run any plays for him to score. His ability to finish around the basket makes opposing bigs more reticent to help off of him, which in turn creates easier opportunities for penetrating guards. He also understands his limitations, which is part of the reason why he's so remarkably efficient from the field.

2nd in Total Rebound Percentage
3rd in Defensive Win Shares
4th in Block Percentage
4th in True Shooting Percentage
4th in Offensive Rating
9th in Overall Win Shares
9th in Wins Above Replacement
21st in Real Plus/Minus (T-2nd amongst centers)
Played in every game in the last two seasons.

By no means is he the only avenue that we should pursue in '15, but he's certainly not a scrub.


its fine during the regular season. lets see how much he is valuable in the playoffs.

Dirk doesn't win without Tyson.

Having DJ patrol the perimeter allows the Clippers to play Crawford and Griffin extended minutes because neither are great defenders. Or even Redick, but he gives much more effort on the defensive end than given credit for. Just look at the Clippers and tell me who outside of Cp3 and DJ are solid defenders? Barnes has lost a step and even in his prime he wasn't a great man defender, just an annoyance. I'm not saying DJ is the most important player, but they don't reach top 3 in the competitive West without having Deandre.

His man defense isn't great yet and guys like Noah/Davis play much better pick and roll defense but he does swat at an elite level and can cover defensive lapses by guys like Crawford and Griffin. That's valuable and worth near max money in the NBA today simply because it allows you to march out 3-4 guys who are mediocre to poor defenders and not be punished repeatedly.
How can they play him in the 4th Qt when he's so terrible at the line? He plays 35 mpg, so I guess that means he's playing in the 4th. I'd expect teams to hack a Jordan in the playoffs though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Jim99187
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 22138

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:39 am    Post subject:

TheElectronica wrote:
Jim99187 wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
I disagree with the notion that Jordan isn't an offensive threat. He's a double digit scorer while using very few possessions and you don't have to run any plays for him to score. His ability to finish around the basket makes opposing bigs more reticent to help off of him, which in turn creates easier opportunities for penetrating guards. He also understands his limitations, which is part of the reason why he's so remarkably efficient from the field.

2nd in Total Rebound Percentage
3rd in Defensive Win Shares
4th in Block Percentage
4th in True Shooting Percentage
4th in Offensive Rating
9th in Overall Win Shares
9th in Wins Above Replacement
21st in Real Plus/Minus (T-2nd amongst centers)
Played in every game in the last two seasons.

By no means is he the only avenue that we should pursue in '15, but he's certainly not a scrub.


its fine during the regular season. lets see how much he is valuable in the playoffs.

Dirk doesn't win without Tyson.

Having DJ patrol the perimeter allows the Clippers to play Crawford and Griffin extended minutes because neither are great defenders. Or even Redick, but he gives much more effort on the defensive end than given credit for. Just look at the Clippers and tell me who outside of Cp3 and DJ are solid defenders? Barnes has lost a step and even in his prime he wasn't a great man defender, just an annoyance. I'm not saying DJ is the most important player, but they don't reach top 3 in the competitive West without having Deandre.

His man defense isn't great yet and guys like Noah/Davis play much better pick and roll defense but he does swat at an elite level and can cover defensive lapses by guys like Crawford and Griffin. That's valuable and worth near max money in the NBA today simply because it allows you to march out 3-4 guys who are mediocre to poor defenders and not be punished repeatedly.


lol if he was that worth and that much hype that u are giving him then he would be the odds on favorite to win the DPOY.

yet he is not even in the top 3

so chillax on overrating a glorified role player
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
dao
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:44 am    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
I disagree with the notion that Jordan isn't an offensive threat. He's a double digit scorer while using very few possessions and you don't have to run any plays for him to score. His ability to finish around the basket makes opposing bigs more reticent to help off of him, which in turn creates easier opportunities for penetrating guards. He also understands his limitations, which is part of the reason why he's so remarkably efficient from the field.

2nd in Total Rebound Percentage
3rd in Defensive Win Shares
4th in Block Percentage
4th in True Shooting Percentage
4th in Offensive Rating
9th in Overall Win Shares
9th in Wins Above Replacement
21st in Real Plus/Minus (T-2nd amongst centers)
Played in every game in the last two seasons.

By no means is he the only avenue that we should pursue in '15, but he's certainly not a scrub.
10 ppg with Chris Paul as the PG doesn't sound very impressive to me. His FG% is extremely high, but I imagine that will happen if you only take easy shots/dunks created by others. Overall he's a good player, but with limited cap space, he'd be a bad acquisition for LA. We need stars, and he isn't one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Jim99187
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 22138

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:46 am    Post subject:

dao wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
I disagree with the notion that Jordan isn't an offensive threat. He's a double digit scorer while using very few possessions and you don't have to run any plays for him to score. His ability to finish around the basket makes opposing bigs more reticent to help off of him, which in turn creates easier opportunities for penetrating guards. He also understands his limitations, which is part of the reason why he's so remarkably efficient from the field.

2nd in Total Rebound Percentage
3rd in Defensive Win Shares
4th in Block Percentage
4th in True Shooting Percentage
4th in Offensive Rating
9th in Overall Win Shares
9th in Wins Above Replacement
21st in Real Plus/Minus (T-2nd amongst centers)
Played in every game in the last two seasons.

By no means is he the only avenue that we should pursue in '15, but he's certainly not a scrub.
10 ppg with Chris Paul as the PG doesn't sound very impressive to me. His FG% is extremely high, but I imagine that will happen if you only take easy shots/dunks created by others. Overall he's a good player, but with limited cap space, he'd be a bad acquisition for LA. We need stars, and he isn't one.


exactly. I would also like to see how he gets his points?

Dunks, Lobs, offensive putbacks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:41 am    Post subject:

dao wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
dao wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
dao wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
dao wrote:


Yuck. A 10.5 ppg role player that can't shoot FTs (which means he shouldn't really be playing in the 4th quarter of a tight playoff game) signing for 12-13m.That's the kind of deal that will kill your championship prospects for the foreseeable future. He's a great rebounder, but he sucks offensively and is a little overrated defensively (despite high bpg) as others have mentioned in this thread.


There won't be many choices to get an anchor. And you won't win without one.
The Heat win championships with a PF playing C and a SF playing PF.


So you are assuming we somehow get the best player in the game on the Lakers? I would be all for that, by the way. But minus that, the Heat aren't winning squat. The teams that give them trouble are teams with size as a result of them not having an anchor.
You said that teams don't win without an anchor, and I disproved the notion with an example. Explaining why you were wrong doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.


Is this where you say you don't need a legit franchise superstar either because the Pistons won without one?

The Heat are an exception to the rule. The exception proves the rule.

You disproved nothing. Either you get an anchor, or, you have to make up for NOT having one through other means such as depth or crazy good talent elsewhere, etc.

It's like when someone says, "you need to save for retirement" or "you need to go to college". I'm sure you're the guy that isn't going to go to college or save for retirement because look, Zac Efron isn't saving for retirement and he never went to college so why should I? I disproved you!
Your analogy is off. He didn't say it's nice to have an anchor. He said that you can't win without an anchor. Pointing out that the 2 time defending champs win without one in the starting lineup disproves the statement.

Obviously an anchor is an important piece. An important role of a center is to be the defensive anchor, and obviously centers are very important. The point though is that you can't piss away 12-13 million on a guy like Jordan just to say you have an anchor. Acquiring stars like Love is more important than filling particular positions with role players.

As for the Pistons, they did not have a superstar, but they had 4 all star caliber players and 1 elite role player in their starting lineup. That's a star studded team.


How is my analogy off?

Do I need to save for retirement or not? I do, right? Or do I not have to since there are many millionaires who never did and now don't have to?

As a general rule, you do need that defensive anchor in order to win. As with any rule, there are exceptions, but we shouldn't follow the path of the exception to prove a point. In fact, I think most people agree we need an anchor, the point of contention seems to be the price associated with a Deandre Jordan more so than the fact that we don't need an anchor.

Having a defensive anchor provides you with the easiest path to a championship.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GRE4T ONE
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 10 Jul 2010
Posts: 728

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:41 am    Post subject:

Jim99187 wrote:
GRE4T ONE wrote:
If the lakers had the #1 pick in the draft I would make this trade.


i won't. after these guys are gone, I would:

Embiid
Wiggins
Parker
Exum
Smart


Kyrie is the sure thing. He is a guy you build around. That list is not a sure thing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
dao
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:15 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
dao wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
dao wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
dao wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
dao wrote:


Yuck. A 10.5 ppg role player that can't shoot FTs (which means he shouldn't really be playing in the 4th quarter of a tight playoff game) signing for 12-13m.That's the kind of deal that will kill your championship prospects for the foreseeable future. He's a great rebounder, but he sucks offensively and is a little overrated defensively (despite high bpg) as others have mentioned in this thread.


There won't be many choices to get an anchor. And you won't win without one.
The Heat win championships with a PF playing C and a SF playing PF.


So you are assuming we somehow get the best player in the game on the Lakers? I would be all for that, by the way. But minus that, the Heat aren't winning squat. The teams that give them trouble are teams with size as a result of them not having an anchor.
You said that teams don't win without an anchor, and I disproved the notion with an example. Explaining why you were wrong doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.


Is this where you say you don't need a legit franchise superstar either because the Pistons won without one?

The Heat are an exception to the rule. The exception proves the rule.

You disproved nothing. Either you get an anchor, or, you have to make up for NOT having one through other means such as depth or crazy good talent elsewhere, etc.

It's like when someone says, "you need to save for retirement" or "you need to go to college". I'm sure you're the guy that isn't going to go to college or save for retirement because look, Zac Efron isn't saving for retirement and he never went to college so why should I? I disproved you!
Your analogy is off. He didn't say it's nice to have an anchor. He said that you can't win without an anchor. Pointing out that the 2 time defending champs win without one in the starting lineup disproves the statement.

Obviously an anchor is an important piece. An important role of a center is to be the defensive anchor, and obviously centers are very important. The point though is that you can't piss away 12-13 million on a guy like Jordan just to say you have an anchor. Acquiring stars like Love is more important than filling particular positions with role players.

As for the Pistons, they did not have a superstar, but they had 4 all star caliber players and 1 elite role player in their starting lineup. That's a star studded team.


How is my analogy off?

Do I need to save for retirement or not? I do, right? Or do I not have to since there are many millionaires who never did and now don't have to?

As a general rule, you do need that defensive anchor in order to win. As with any rule, there are exceptions, but we shouldn't follow the path of the exception to prove a point. In fact, I think most people agree we need an anchor, the point of contention seems to be the price associated with a Deandre Jordan more so than the fact that we don't need an anchor.

Having a defensive anchor provides you with the easiest path to a championship.
Your analogy is off because it is different from the original statement I responded to. VLF said that you won't win without an anchor. You are saying that anchors are important pieces. I agree with the second statement. The first is wrong though. The Heat are in route to a three peat without an anchor in the starting lineup. And my whole point here was not to say we should ignore the C position. The point is that you shouldn't fill it with an overpriced role player when you need to acquire a star with the money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:18 pm    Post subject:

GRE4T ONE wrote:
Jim99187 wrote:
GRE4T ONE wrote:
If the lakers had the #1 pick in the draft I would make this trade.


i won't. after these guys are gone, I would:

Embiid
Wiggins
Parker
Exum
Smart


Kyrie is the sure thing. He is a guy you build around. That list is not a sure thing.


The only thing that is sure about Irving is that he is sure to get hurt on a regular basis.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:19 pm    Post subject:

Hector the Pup wrote:
GRE4T ONE wrote:
Jim99187 wrote:
GRE4T ONE wrote:
If the lakers had the #1 pick in the draft I would make this trade.


i won't. after these guys are gone, I would:

Embiid
Wiggins
Parker
Exum
Smart


Kyrie is the sure thing. He is a guy you build around. That list is not a sure thing.


The only thing that is sure about Irving is that he is sure to get hurt on a regular basis.


Only thing I'm sure about Irving is that I'm not sure about him going forward.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals


Last edited by yinoma2001 on Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SickwithIt1010
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 10 May 2011
Posts: 353

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:34 pm    Post subject:

GRE4T ONE wrote:
Jim99187 wrote:
GRE4T ONE wrote:
If the lakers had the #1 pick in the draft I would make this trade.


i won't. after these guys are gone, I would:

Embiid
Wiggins
Parker
Exum
Smart


Kyrie is the sure thing. He is a guy you build around. That list is not a sure thing.


He does have an injury history but I would take him over Smart. The other guys I may take before Kyrie just because their potential is pretty scary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TheElectronica
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Jan 2010
Posts: 1392

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:47 pm    Post subject:

dao wrote:
How can they play him in the 4th Qt when he's so terrible at the line? He plays 35 mpg, so I guess that means he's playing in the 4th. I'd expect teams to hack a Jordan in the playoffs though.

I'd love to see a team win a championship employing the hack-a-Jordan strategy. It isn't pretty basketball and it takes away from the flow of their offense and the Clippers offense. But if you have players that can defend, you can get about 1 point per possession and you just need to limit theirs which is doable. Slower pace, less likely to get transition buckets off free throws.

Quote:
lol if he was that worth and that much hype that u are giving him then he would be the odds on favorite to win the DPOY.

yet he is not even in the top 3

so chillax on overrating a glorified role player

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/DRPM

Good stats for best defensive players. Player's estimated on-court impact on team defensive performance, measured in points allowed per 100 defensive possessions. Deandre is top 30. You may look at that as awful, but notice that a lot of those players play a lot less minutes than Deandre and on much better overall defensive teams. His WAR or "estimated number of team wins attributable to each player, based on RPM" is top 10 among the elite players of the NBA. Players shoot 49% at the rim against the Clippers

http://stats.nba.com/playerTrackingDefense.html?pageNo=1&rowsPerPage=25

meaning DJ is defending the rim at the level of Noah 47%, Davis 48.9%, and Duncan at 47%.

Essentially, he's far from a glorified scrub role player. He might not be the DPOY but his defensive impact this year is pretty big.

I'm not saying he's the only option we should pursue, but given his trajectory of improvement, age, and defensive impact I'd say he's worth looking into. People want Sanders but he's shown he's been a headcase who is injury prone this year. I'm not a huge fan of his. Asik can be interesting, but he's not the finisher DJ is offensively and just as bad at the free throw line.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
dao
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:05 pm    Post subject:

To be fair, acquiring Jordon might make sense if you can get him for around 10-11 million and still sign Love. I have been a proponent of acquiring Stephenson, and I admit that Jordan would probably make more sense. The key though is that he must sign for a low enough dollar amount for us to still sign Love.

Exum
Kobe
Wesley
Love
Jordan

This is a fantastic lineup. I've been looking at is as Jordan vs. Love, which is a no brainer. But Jordan vs. Stephenson or a similar player is a legitimate debate. I'd probably go with Jordan.

The trouble with this strategy is that we'd have to save all of our money this offseason, and basically play this nightmarish season out again next year. But long term, it makes sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
dao
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:10 pm    Post subject:

TheElectronica wrote:

I'd love to see a team win a championship employing the hack-a-Jordan strategy. It isn't pretty basketball and it takes away from the flow of their offense and the Clippers offense. But if you have players that can defend, you can get about 1 point per possession and you just need to limit theirs which is doable. Slower pace, less likely to get transition buckets off free throws.

Jordan doesn't shoot 50% though, he shoots 43%. That's less than 1 point per possession. It's the equivalent of a team shooting 43% from the field.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 2:00 pm    Post subject:

dao wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
dao wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
dao wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
dao wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
dao wrote:


Yuck. A 10.5 ppg role player that can't shoot FTs (which means he shouldn't really be playing in the 4th quarter of a tight playoff game) signing for 12-13m.That's the kind of deal that will kill your championship prospects for the foreseeable future. He's a great rebounder, but he sucks offensively and is a little overrated defensively (despite high bpg) as others have mentioned in this thread.


There won't be many choices to get an anchor. And you won't win without one.
The Heat win championships with a PF playing C and a SF playing PF.


So you are assuming we somehow get the best player in the game on the Lakers? I would be all for that, by the way. But minus that, the Heat aren't winning squat. The teams that give them trouble are teams with size as a result of them not having an anchor.
You said that teams don't win without an anchor, and I disproved the notion with an example. Explaining why you were wrong doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.


Is this where you say you don't need a legit franchise superstar either because the Pistons won without one?

The Heat are an exception to the rule. The exception proves the rule.

You disproved nothing. Either you get an anchor, or, you have to make up for NOT having one through other means such as depth or crazy good talent elsewhere, etc.

It's like when someone says, "you need to save for retirement" or "you need to go to college". I'm sure you're the guy that isn't going to go to college or save for retirement because look, Zac Efron isn't saving for retirement and he never went to college so why should I? I disproved you!
Your analogy is off. He didn't say it's nice to have an anchor. He said that you can't win without an anchor. Pointing out that the 2 time defending champs win without one in the starting lineup disproves the statement.

Obviously an anchor is an important piece. An important role of a center is to be the defensive anchor, and obviously centers are very important. The point though is that you can't piss away 12-13 million on a guy like Jordan just to say you have an anchor. Acquiring stars like Love is more important than filling particular positions with role players.

As for the Pistons, they did not have a superstar, but they had 4 all star caliber players and 1 elite role player in their starting lineup. That's a star studded team.


How is my analogy off?

Do I need to save for retirement or not? I do, right? Or do I not have to since there are many millionaires who never did and now don't have to?

As a general rule, you do need that defensive anchor in order to win. As with any rule, there are exceptions, but we shouldn't follow the path of the exception to prove a point. In fact, I think most people agree we need an anchor, the point of contention seems to be the price associated with a Deandre Jordan more so than the fact that we don't need an anchor.

Having a defensive anchor provides you with the easiest path to a championship.
Your analogy is off because it is different from the original statement I responded to. VLF said that you won't win without an anchor. You are saying that anchors are important pieces. I agree with the second statement. The first is wrong though. The Heat are in route to a three peat without an anchor in the starting lineup. And my whole point here was not to say we should ignore the C position. The point is that you shouldn't fill it with an overpriced role player when you need to acquire a star with the money.


Yes, VLF said that you won't win without an anchor. And outside of exceptions, that is generally true. All you did was bring up an exception.

It is no different than telling someone they need to go to college or save for retirement. Sure, Kobe Bryant is living proof you don't NEED to go to college to be successful, but outside of exceptions, it is generally true that you should go to college.

If your point was that it is not worth gaining that defensive anchor because of his price point, then I would agree, but that has nothing to do with the statement that you need a defensive anchor to win. Which, outside of exceptions, like saving for retirement or going to college, is true.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TheElectronica
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Jan 2010
Posts: 1392

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 2:53 pm    Post subject:

dao wrote:
TheElectronica wrote:

I'd love to see a team win a championship employing the hack-a-Jordan strategy. It isn't pretty basketball and it takes away from the flow of their offense and the Clippers offense. But if you have players that can defend, you can get about 1 point per possession and you just need to limit theirs which is doable. Slower pace, less likely to get transition buckets off free throws.

Jordan doesn't shoot 50% though, he shoots 43%. That's less than 1 point per possession. It's the equivalent of a team shooting 43% from the field.

Regardless, I'm not concerned about a few minute stretch where they are going to have to foul DJ. That just means for the next 2 minutes after, they are in the bonus and the moment someone is touched, free throws. Drummond can't shoot free throws and if you have a chance to sign Drummond you do it. The same applies to DJ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 14 of 15
Jump to:  

 
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






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
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.


Powered by phpBB