6th Pick vs Irving
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15
 
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
dao
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 2:54 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
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.
I never said it was easy to win without an anchor. I simply said it's silly to say you can't win without one when the Heat are about to three-peat without one. The stuff you're saying is not something I disagree with. But the analogy doesn't fit the original conversation. You are creating a straw man. I never said that it is common to win without an anchor. I simply said that it can be done.
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 2:55 pm    Post subject:

TheElectronica wrote:
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.


Are people arguing against DJ at ANY price? Or just ... at his current or higher price?

I get the free throws argument but if you could get DJ at the MLE then the free throws argument goes out the window sorry.
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 2:56 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
TheElectronica wrote:
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.


Are people arguing against DJ at ANY price? Or just ... at his current or higher price?

I get the free throws argument but if you could get DJ at the MLE then the free throws argument goes out the window sorry.


2 points the argument is over:
Picking up Deandre over Love
Paying him around @16mil guaranteed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:02 pm    Post subject:

Jim99187 wrote:


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


'
I guess I missed when they announced that vote.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
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 3:03 pm    Post subject:

TheElectronica wrote:
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.
The hack strategy can be effective at times. There were times where hack a Dwight was effective last year, with the controversy of whether D'Antoni should pull him late in games. And Dwight is a better shooter than Jordan. We'll see how the Clippers deal with it in the playoffs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:04 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 is surely an overrated player. The only sure things are that he will miss lots of games, play no defense and will be part of friction in the locker room. Pass on that.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
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 3:07 pm    Post subject:

I understand why you would be hesitant to throw max money at DJ.

But I think it is necessary to have a player of his caliber, or his type. Fact is, you are always going to have to overpay for big men. Look at Hibbert and his contract versus perceived production.

I think people are against throwing say, 14-16 million at Deandre. If the Lakers were to have Kevin Love and Exum/Wiggins/Parker etc. or someone who can be another elite option? I'd swallow the bullet and go for whatever amount is necessary to get a defensive anchor. Having that anchor allows you to play more offensively minded players than you normally would if you have a combo of Kevin Love and say, Pau Gasol type. You can get away with guys like Jamal Crawford for extended periods of time because you have a rim protector. That saves you a few million from having to sign a two way wing player that would have to mask the weak interior defense. Half the reason why the Wolves are underperforming is because of the horrible bench, but having Pekovic and Love on defense doesn't help.

And I think for any rim protecting big that is not useless at everything else is going to cost a lot. Asik was putting up 3 points and 5 rebounds and got essentially 8 million a year from Houston. Bigs are going to be overpaid. Having a guy like Deandre who is still improving offensively and is already an established defender is going to cost near max money. I mean he was much worse a few years ago and still got 10-11 million a year. Now that he's improved, he's going to command near max to max, imo.

DJ is not my favorite choice to have, but people are making it out to seem like he is a scrub that can't help a team win or is riding purely on the coattails of Cp3. While that may be true offensively, he is still able to move off ball very well for a big and able to finish. You can't say that about Hibbert...Max is a bit overpaid for him, but that will be market price for when he is a FA. You can rely on Stephenson instead for 12-13 million, but the value of a defensive big outweighs every other player EXCEPT for the elite superstars. Guys like Cp3, Durant, Lebron, etc. are worth more but can't get more. Issue then becomes are you willing to throw down 12-15 million to pair up a defensive big with Love or an offensive minded wing? I wouldn't go as far as saying a guy like Lance can be replaced for cheap, but his impact on the game can be more easily replaced than a defensive big.
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 3:08 pm    Post subject:

Jim99187 wrote:


2 points the argument is over:
Picking up Deandre over Love
Paying him around @16mil guaranteed

Unless we have Julius Randle who pans out to be 20/10 guy, obviously it is K-Love over DJ.

But I feel like 16 million for DJ if he improves more is not out of the question. That is if we net Love and have a guy like Exum/Wiggins/Parker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:10 pm    Post subject:

TheElectronica wrote:
Jim99187 wrote:


2 points the argument is over:
Picking up Deandre over Love
Paying him around @16mil guaranteed

Unless we have Julius Randle who pans out to be 20/10 guy, obviously it is K-Love over DJ.

But I feel like 16 million for DJ if he improves more is not out of the question. That is if we net Love and have a guy like Exum/Wiggins/Parker


Parker himself said he's a PF at the next level.
i really do think he'll bust at SF....but is a guaranteed all star at PF
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 3:12 pm    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.


I think there's a distorted view of what a star is. In order for a player to be considered one, conventional wisdom states that he has to be able to score, with very few exceptions. A guy can be completely awful on the defensive end, but as long as he can put the ball in the hoop, it's overlooked. But if a guy's a limited offensive player but really good on the defensive end, he's considered to be a role player.

Even though "defense wins championships" is one of the oldest cliches in sports, individual defenders are still tremendously underrated, often in favor of guys who give up nearly as much as they get. Finding people to put the ball in the hoop is relatively easy. It's the most abundant skill in basketball. Offensively, he's scoring double digits while getting he 7th most shots on his team (8th if you count Granger).

You need two legitimate offensive options in order to justify signing him, but he's a very good player, and I'd argue that he impacts wins & losses as much as some of the so-called "max level" guys that have been discussed.
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 3:12 pm    Post subject:

dao wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
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.
I never said it was easy to win without an anchor. I simply said it's silly to say you can't win without one when the Heat are about to three-peat without one. The stuff you're saying is not something I disagree with. But the analogy doesn't fit the original conversation. You are creating a straw man. I never said that it is common to win without an anchor. I simply said that it can be done.


Well, I think you were just trying to be a smarty pants there and point out that his statement isn't always 100% true in all scenarios. But his advice/suggestion that we try to acquire a defensive anchor because we'll need one to win, is a valid one.

We all know there are exceptions to the rule. If you're Lebron or MJ, if you'll go down as being one of the best players to have EVER played the game sure, we all know there are exceptions.

And I wasn't creating a straw man at all you know why? Because it's not a straw man. You do realize that just because you're saying it is a straw man, doesn't mean it is a straw man right?

If you're on board with the idea that we need to consider a defensive anchor to get back to winning, why not just focus on that discussion instead of trying to be that smart guy who has to point out the exceptions to the rule (as if no one already knew about them or something).

There's always that guy, when you're discussing team needs and someone says "man, we could really use a shooter for this team" who has to say "noooo nooo back in '56 they won without a shooter so thus we don't really need a shooter". Don't be him!
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 3:30 pm    Post subject:

This isn't a flukey, random example from 56. It's the reigning back to back champions. It speaks to the value of star power vs. just filling positions. And I never said it was a bad idea to want to get an anchor. That's another straw man. This conversation has gone on long enough though. You keep saying the same thing over and over.
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 5:36 pm    Post subject:

dao wrote:
This isn't a flukey, random example from 56. It's the reigning back to back champions. It speaks to the value of star power vs. just filling positions. And I never said it was a bad idea to want to get an anchor. That's another straw man. This conversation has gone on long enough though. You keep saying the same thing over and over.


Do you think we should try to acquire a defensive anchor or not? LOL. You do right? Ok then!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
scoobs
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 4746

PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:50 pm    Post subject:

Maybe we buy a first round pick from a team like Houston? I heard they really want to free up some money to go after Melo. Maybe they would be willing to trade us Montejunas. , Garcia and the 25th pick for the Steve Blake trade exception and a 2015 2nd round pick. That would free them up about 3.5 million in salary and it would allow us to per sue a draft day trade for Irving or Love. 6th pick, Nash and 3 million cash for Irving and Gee works.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Bard207
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 7713

PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:13 pm    Post subject:

scoobs wrote:
Maybe we buy a first round pick from a team like Houston? I heard they really want to free up some money to go after Melo. Maybe they would be willing to trade us Montejunas. , Garcia and the 25th pick for the Steve Blake trade exception and a 2015 2nd round pick. That would free them up about 3.5 million in salary and it would allow us to per sue a draft day trade for Irving or Love. 6th pick, Nash and 3 million cash for Irving and Gee works.


I would imagine that Houston would put moving the larger contracts of Lin and Asik higher on the To Do List than the contracts of Garcia and Motiejunas if they wanted to free significant Cap Space.

Morey would probably need some positive signals from Melo about signing with Houston before he (Morey) would start working hard to create Cap Space.

Morey isn't supposed to talk to Melo until July, so doing a Draft night trade could blowup on Houston if Melo doesn't join the Rockets.


I have doubts that the 6th pick + Nash + 3 million cash is enough to get Kyrie. Yes, you have the Lakers taking on Gee, but Cleveland should be looking for more juice than that since you are sending Nash to the Cavs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kobe_somebody_odom
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 1661

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:13 am    Post subject:

This is a tough one.

1) Kyrie is injury prone...

2) Not sure Kobe and Kyrie will work at all and we would have to convince Kyrie to stay in free agency. Kyrie is an established star in the league with a "Uncle Drew" personality built for Hollywood. I don't see this meshing with Kobe's style.

3) I would like to have our own homegrown star player. A few will be there at pick #6 this year and 3 out of 4 of Exum, Smart, Gordon, Anderson will be on the board. As long as the Lakers don't take Vonleh I'm good. I really see Gordon as a potential Keneth Faried / Lamar Odom hybrid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
silkwilkes
Star Player
Star Player


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

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:36 am    Post subject:

If you can trade the 6th pick for Irving, you do it... but if you get into the top 5 of the draft and you have Wigging/Parker/Exxum/Embiid/Smart, you don't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
watchME
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 May 2011
Posts: 3384

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:49 am    Post subject:

silkwilkes wrote:
If you can trade the 6th pick for Irving, you do it... but if you get into the top 5 of the draft and you have Wigging/Parker/Exxum/Embiid/Smart, you don't.
smart will be a bust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
silkwilkes
Star Player
Star Player


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

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:51 am    Post subject:

watchME wrote:
silkwilkes wrote:
If you can trade the 6th pick for Irving, you do it... but if you get into the top 5 of the draft and you have Wigging/Parker/Exxum/Embiid/Smart, you don't.
smart will be a bust
I don't think it's possible to pick 4 or 5 anyhow. It's either top 3 for us or 6-10 i think. We can cross off Smart or whoever from the list...
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
Page 15 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