|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | The basic misconception is lakers rolling with these 3 guys and letting them learn on job.
They will get tons of mins but also will be shipped out when opportunity shows up |
Listen man, I put a lot of thought into the post, and other posters have put a lot of thought into theirs. This is the 3rd or 4th time you've posted this. When others asked you who you think is available for trade for these unproven guys, you say "don't ask me."
It's not a misconception. It's a misunderstanding on your part.
WOJ's article yesterday on Randle said that the Lakers weren't even willing to part with Randle as part of the Cousins talks this summer. So your bald assertion that we will just ship them out ASAP is misguided and unsupported.
The Lakers will undoubtedly let DLO/Randle get ample playing time and shine. It's part of the FO's goal to rebuild prestige by saying they nailed their picks. Clarkson is already a shining example of this too, but I fear due to contractual reasons, he may be the most susceptible of the 3 to get traded.
So no, there is no misconception here.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jim99187
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 22138
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | Quote: | The basic misconception is lakers rolling with these 3 guys and letting them learn on job.
They will get tons of mins but also will be shipped out when opportunity shows up |
Listen man, I put a lot of thought into the post, and other posters have put a lot of thought into theirs. This is the 3rd or 4th time you've posted this. When others asked you who you think is available for trade for these unproven guys, you say "don't ask me."
It's not a misconception. It's a misunderstanding on your part.
WOJ's article yesterday on Randle said that the Lakers weren't even willing to part with Randle as part of the Cousins talks this summer. So your bald assertion that we will just ship them out ASAP is misguided and unsupported.
The Lakers will undoubtedly let DLO/Randle get ample playing time and shine. It's part of the FO's goal to rebuild prestige by saying they nailed their picks. Clarkson is already a shining example of this too, but I fear due to contractual reasons, he may be the most susceptible of the 3 to get traded.
So no, there is no misconception here. |
Isnt part of different then only him?
Jim has said he will stepdown if we r not deep in playoffs. He is invested in getting high quality product oncourt
TWC contract is based on ratings
Need good product for those $$$ seats
They r going to do everything in their power to get into playoffs this yr and next. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jim99187 wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | Quote: | The basic misconception is lakers rolling with these 3 guys and letting them learn on job.
They will get tons of mins but also will be shipped out when opportunity shows up |
Listen man, I put a lot of thought into the post, and other posters have put a lot of thought into theirs. This is the 3rd or 4th time you've posted this. When others asked you who you think is available for trade for these unproven guys, you say "don't ask me."
It's not a misconception. It's a misunderstanding on your part.
WOJ's article yesterday on Randle said that the Lakers weren't even willing to part with Randle as part of the Cousins talks this summer. So your bald assertion that we will just ship them out ASAP is misguided and unsupported.
The Lakers will undoubtedly let DLO/Randle get ample playing time and shine. It's part of the FO's goal to rebuild prestige by saying they nailed their picks. Clarkson is already a shining example of this too, but I fear due to contractual reasons, he may be the most susceptible of the 3 to get traded.
So no, there is no misconception here. |
Isnt part of different then only him?
Jim has said he will stepdown if we r not deep in playoffs. He is invested in getting high quality product oncourt
TWC contract is based on ratings
Need good product for those $$$ seats
They r going to do everything in their power to get into playoffs this yr and next. |
So who is available to trade for and what will the Lakers give up?
We didn't want to part with Randle in a package for Cousins.
Look, we didn't even get rid of Bynum when Kobe wanted him shipped out too. There's a part of FO prestige that comes with nailing draft picks. Further, the moment you trade out rookie deals for bigger veteran contracts, you limit our spending power in 2016 and 2017. So why would we trade CBA-friendly rookie deals now? No reason whatsoever.
As for $$$/TWC, that's why Kobe's here. If healthy, he always fills the seats. You couple that with a young core and despite a likely non-playoff appearance, you still have a lot of buzz/interest surrounding the Lakers. Then in 2016/17 you have a chance to get 3 max players AND keep rookie friendly players.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 70sdude wrote: | So far, I'm not seeing anything close to comparative added talent here in our team. No amazing Westbrook here, no scoring demon like Durant here, perhaps no eventual all-NBA guys just yet, but we'll see, won't we ?
I suspect that OKC is deep enough without Durant that they wouldn't be a "sinking ship", not at least in terms of sinking to the ocean floor and missing the playoffs. We saw what the Lakers became when Shaq left (middle of the league), before the Pau prize was found. The Lakers stayed mid-pack before replacing their all-NBA player.
OKC's new coach is an unknown quantity in the league. That club still represents one of the smartest ever rebuilds since acquiring Durant. I think that hoping that we have something like that is fine, as long as we don't confuse hope with setting more realistic expectations. |
1. To be fair, we haven't seen DLO/Randle play so we don't know.
2. OKC w/out Durant are susceptible to a sinking ship mentality. W/out Durant, if Westbrook gets hurt, they are screwed. Further, if Durant leaves so too will Russ/Ibaka in 2017 IMO. Then you're stuck with Dion Waiters/Kanter as your foundation. good luck with that.
3. Again, it's just a benchmark. These franchises did it in a way that's different than the Lakers, but it's helpful to see how we progress in years 1-3 of the rebuild to see how far along GSW/OKC were. It also depends heavily on free agent signings in 2016/17.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim99187
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 22138
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: |
So who is available to trade for and what will the Lakers give up?
We didn't want to part with Randle in a package for Cousins.
Look, we didn't even get rid of Bynum when Kobe wanted him shipped out too. There's a part of FO prestige that comes with nailing draft picks. Further, the moment you trade out rookie deals for bigger veteran contracts, you limit our spending power in 2016 and 2017. So why would we trade CBA-friendly rookie deals now? No reason whatsoever.
As for $$$/TWC, that's why Kobe's here. If healthy, he always fills the seats. You couple that with a young core and despite a likely non-playoff appearance, you still have a lot of buzz/interest surrounding the Lakers. Then in 2016/17 you have a chance to get 3 max players AND keep rookie friendly players. |
look i know u have put in the effort and i appreciate that. I am just saying the lakers are not going to emrace rebuild the next few yrs and try to make playoffs in 2017.
they will trade these guys if Mitch thinks the incoming player makes them contender earlier then later. dont ask me who the players might be.
Also the lakers are more worried about bringing another chip here and not to showoff on their draft picks, that they nailed them.
the lakers never intended to rebuild they were forced to do so with injuries. the end goal will always be the same: Chips
while OKC/GSW wanted to rebuild through draft |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jim99187 wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: |
So who is available to trade for and what will the Lakers give up?
We didn't want to part with Randle in a package for Cousins.
Look, we didn't even get rid of Bynum when Kobe wanted him shipped out too. There's a part of FO prestige that comes with nailing draft picks. Further, the moment you trade out rookie deals for bigger veteran contracts, you limit our spending power in 2016 and 2017. So why would we trade CBA-friendly rookie deals now? No reason whatsoever.
As for $$$/TWC, that's why Kobe's here. If healthy, he always fills the seats. You couple that with a young core and despite a likely non-playoff appearance, you still have a lot of buzz/interest surrounding the Lakers. Then in 2016/17 you have a chance to get 3 max players AND keep rookie friendly players. |
look i know u have put in the effort and i appreciate that. I am just saying the lakers are not going to emrace rebuild the next few yrs and try to make playoffs in 2017.
they will trade these guys if Mitch thinks the incoming player makes them contender earlier then later. dont ask me who the players might be.
Also the lakers are more worried about bringing another chip here and not to showoff on their draft picks, that they nailed them. |
Sure, but my point is that it's not mutually exclusive.
I think the OPTIMAL point is something like:
1. DLO/Randle have ROY play; Clarkson continues to show he's a top young guard.
2. 2016 we Durant/Horford.
If you trade our young core away (and their rookie deals), it'll be tough to pursue 2 max players in 2016.
We CAN bring a blue chip player, it's called 60m in cap space. Trading away rookie contracts is just a bad way to rebuild IMO. You unnecessarily shorten the length of your "dynasty" that way due to cap issues.
I'd take a wager that for this season, all 3 guys will stay.
When it comes to 2016-17, I think chances of Clarkson being packaged in a trade is 33% or something to that effect, while DLO/Randle are likely staying (thanks to continued rookie deals).
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
So using the "we need to win now" logic, why would we trade Randle/Clarkson, for example, for Horford when we can have Randle, Clarkson AND Horford next year?
It may be a different story if we miss out on FAs in 2016 and desperation sinks in, but I think we will be a substantially better team in 2016 and 2017 through free agency and continued development from our young guys. You really can't ask for a better cap position than what we have in 2016 and 17.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
22
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Obviously things won't be the same (bleep)-for-tat timeline wise with the OKC/GSW rebuilds but I agree with Yinomes in that we will follow a similar path.
Why? Simply because it's the best path under the current CBA. For no other reason. The Lakers don't operate under just doing the same things over and over again (hopefully) for tradition's sake, they do what's ever going to work to get them back to the mountain top. Trading for fringe franchise players that will leave your cupboard bare won't work. and they know it.
This path to our rebuild was clear right after the Nash/Dwight combo failed. Myself and several others have been advocating it for awhile. I can remember several posters who fought me tooth and nail over it but I won't call them out. Frankly I'm just glad to see us on this path as I agree it's the best strategy to use |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 22 wrote: | Obviously things won't be the same (bleep)-for-tat timeline wise with the OKC/GSW rebuilds but I agree with Yinomes in that we will follow a similar path.
Why? Simply because it's the best path under the current CBA. For no other reason. The Lakers don't operate under just doing the same things over and over again (hopefully) for tradition's sake, they do what's ever going to work to get them back to the mountain top. Trading for fringe franchise players that will leave your cupboard bare won't work. and they know it.
This path to our rebuild was clear right after the Nash/Dwight combo failed. Myself and several others have been advocating it for awhile. I can remember several posters who fought me tooth and nail over it but I won't call them out. Frankly I'm just glad to see us on this path as I agree it's the best strategy to use |
The funny thing is we get both: what you advocate as well as the Lakers' traditional M.O. of shooting for stars in free agency.
I have doubts that the Lakers trade DLO/Randle. Clarkson maybe, but the chances of him staying here for a while are greater than being traded.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 22 wrote: | Obviously things won't be the same (bleep)-for-tat timeline wise with the OKC/GSW rebuilds but I agree with Yinomes in that we will follow a similar path.
Why? Simply because it's the best path under the current CBA. For no other reason. The Lakers don't operate under just doing the same things over and over again (hopefully) for tradition's sake, they do what's ever going to work to get them back to the mountain top. Trading for fringe franchise players that will leave your cupboard bare won't work. and they know it.
This path to our rebuild was clear right after the Nash/Dwight combo failed. Myself and several others have been advocating it for awhile. I can remember several posters who fought me tooth and nail over it but I won't call them out. Frankly I'm just glad to see us on this path as I agree it's the best strategy to use |
The funny thing is we get both: what you advocate as well as the Lakers' traditional M.O. of shooting for stars in free agency.
I have doubts that the Lakers trade DLO/Randle. Clarkson maybe, but the chances of him staying here for a while are greater than being traded.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
22
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | 22 wrote: | Obviously things won't be the same (bleep)-for-tat timeline wise with the OKC/GSW rebuilds but I agree with Yinomes in that we will follow a similar path.
Why? Simply because it's the best path under the current CBA. For no other reason. The Lakers don't operate under just doing the same things over and over again (hopefully) for tradition's sake, they do what's ever going to work to get them back to the mountain top. Trading for fringe franchise players that will leave your cupboard bare won't work. and they know it.
This path to our rebuild was clear right after the Nash/Dwight combo failed. Myself and several others have been advocating it for awhile. I can remember several posters who fought me tooth and nail over it but I won't call them out. Frankly I'm just glad to see us on this path as I agree it's the best strategy to use |
The funny thing is we get both: what you advocate as well as the Lakers' traditional M.O. of shooting for stars in free agency.
I have doubts that the Lakers trade DLO/Randle. Clarkson maybe, but the chances of him staying here for a while are greater than being traded. |
exactly. And I never said we couldn't or wouldn't try to get established stars. I just said it didn't make sense to get rid of our young talent for the guys available. People just had already labeled me and made up their minds so they weren't listening to reason at that point.
In the end I think our path will look closer to GSW because we have solid vets to aid the youngins, and we will add more at each opportunity  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 22 wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | 22 wrote: | Obviously things won't be the same (bleep)-for-tat timeline wise with the OKC/GSW rebuilds but I agree with Yinomes in that we will follow a similar path.
Why? Simply because it's the best path under the current CBA. For no other reason. The Lakers don't operate under just doing the same things over and over again (hopefully) for tradition's sake, they do what's ever going to work to get them back to the mountain top. Trading for fringe franchise players that will leave your cupboard bare won't work. and they know it.
This path to our rebuild was clear right after the Nash/Dwight combo failed. Myself and several others have been advocating it for awhile. I can remember several posters who fought me tooth and nail over it but I won't call them out. Frankly I'm just glad to see us on this path as I agree it's the best strategy to use |
The funny thing is we get both: what you advocate as well as the Lakers' traditional M.O. of shooting for stars in free agency.
I have doubts that the Lakers trade DLO/Randle. Clarkson maybe, but the chances of him staying here for a while are greater than being traded. |
exactly. And I never said we couldn't or wouldn't try to get established stars. I just said it didn't make sense to get rid of our young talent for the guys available. People just had already labeled me and made up their minds so they weren't listening to reason at that point.
In the end I think our path will look closer to GSW because we have solid vets to aid the youngins, and we will add more at each opportunity |
Or we could just steal OKC's guys (Durant and Westbrook) and say thanks for drafting/developing them. 
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scoobs
Star Player
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 4746
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Though I don't think he is the ideal for for us, because we need way more spacing then we currently have, I feel that Jordan Clarkson is going to blow up this season, into a Dwayne Wade type of shooting guard. I see him possibally getting 18ppg, 5rpg and 4apg, while shooting 47%fgs, 85%fts and 35%threes. Then, if Kobe retires,he might end up being a 22-23ppg scorer. He needs to commit to playing off the ball more and letting Russell set him up for easy baskets (this is kind of going against his strengths though and may be hard to do), buy I just feel that he put in a lot of hard work and with big money also on the horizon, he's going to blow up, this is great news for Laker fans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jim99187 wrote: | | Lakers_Jester wrote: | I know it's still very early to tell but I don't see Randle as the third scoring option like op states. It's kinda pointless to debate since we don't really know what they look like on the court, however randles abilities are the most dominant offensively of the guys in our core. His strength mixed with speed and finishing ability, as well as already decent mid range stroke is going to be hard to stop. I see him as our number 1 option offensively to be honest. Like zbo had been for many years with Memphis even though randle plays diff than zbo he's got that type of dominance and role zbo has had imo at the pf position.
Russell doesn't have the offensive tools so far to dominate in the nba imo from what I've seen. He can continue to develop immensely, however he also doesn't show much desire to be that scoring beast like a curry so far. Time will tell, maybe he understands in the sml its more about adjusting and figuring out the nba game so he wasn't trying to do too much, but rather gel with his teammates and coaching staff. But from what I've seen so far he rather distribute and get his teammates involved than be the number 1 scoring option. He manages the game and picks his spots based on opportunity and situation. Not to say it's a bad thing, I welcome that type of player, but I don't see him as the number 1 scoring option.
Clarkson is a very good offensive player so far but not enough to be the number 1 option imo because I don't necessarily think pick n roll penetration from your scoring guard is enough. It takes a huge toll on the guard constantly driving to the hole that way. Clarkson's game is predicated on his penetration which is great but shouldn't be relied upon as the teams number 1 option because I don't think it is sustainable for the guard throughout an entire championship run or even long term career. Especially now a days most teams have pretty good defense in terms of containing a penetrating guard. Ultimately it doesnt really translate into a reliable number 1 scoring option imo. |
so u r saying we going to hit jackpot on all our 3 young guys?
maybe but i cant be so sure of that |
You seem sure they can bring in a top notch player. If they are that good then wouldn't that be hitting the jackpot?
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jim99187 wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: |
So who is available to trade for and what will the Lakers give up?
We didn't want to part with Randle in a package for Cousins.
Look, we didn't even get rid of Bynum when Kobe wanted him shipped out too. There's a part of FO prestige that comes with nailing draft picks. Further, the moment you trade out rookie deals for bigger veteran contracts, you limit our spending power in 2016 and 2017. So why would we trade CBA-friendly rookie deals now? No reason whatsoever.
As for $$$/TWC, that's why Kobe's here. If healthy, he always fills the seats. You couple that with a young core and despite a likely non-playoff appearance, you still have a lot of buzz/interest surrounding the Lakers. Then in 2016/17 you have a chance to get 3 max players AND keep rookie friendly players. |
look i know u have put in the effort and i appreciate that. I am just saying the lakers are not going to emrace rebuild the next few yrs and try to make playoffs in 2017.
they will trade these guys if Mitch thinks the incoming player makes them contender earlier then later. dont ask me who the players might be.
Also the lakers are more worried about bringing another chip here and not to showoff on their draft picks, that they nailed them.
the lakers never intended to rebuild they were forced to do so with injuries. the end goal will always be the same: Chips
while OKC/GSW wanted to rebuild through draft |
You seem to be enamored with the short term, the same thing that, ironically, yinoma sometimes is as well. Mitch won't trade these youngsters until he feels he has a good idea what they will become. That is based on 15 years of observing Mitch and his actions. If a year or two in Mitch believes that one or more will be average, he will look to move them. If he feels they will be special, he won't. But unless there is another Gasol trade out there, he won't move any until he gets a good feel for what they might become. If that means no playoffs this season, so be it. TWC is a signed deal, there is no audition for them. There will continue to be a season ticket waiting list. Jim is going nowhere. There are no reasons for the FO to panic on these youngsters and Mitch's methodology is to wait and see with young players.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | Jim99187 wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: |
So who is available to trade for and what will the Lakers give up?
We didn't want to part with Randle in a package for Cousins.
Look, we didn't even get rid of Bynum when Kobe wanted him shipped out too. There's a part of FO prestige that comes with nailing draft picks. Further, the moment you trade out rookie deals for bigger veteran contracts, you limit our spending power in 2016 and 2017. So why would we trade CBA-friendly rookie deals now? No reason whatsoever.
As for $$$/TWC, that's why Kobe's here. If healthy, he always fills the seats. You couple that with a young core and despite a likely non-playoff appearance, you still have a lot of buzz/interest surrounding the Lakers. Then in 2016/17 you have a chance to get 3 max players AND keep rookie friendly players. |
look i know u have put in the effort and i appreciate that. I am just saying the lakers are not going to emrace rebuild the next few yrs and try to make playoffs in 2017.
they will trade these guys if Mitch thinks the incoming player makes them contender earlier then later. dont ask me who the players might be.
Also the lakers are more worried about bringing another chip here and not to showoff on their draft picks, that they nailed them.
the lakers never intended to rebuild they were forced to do so with injuries. the end goal will always be the same: Chips
while OKC/GSW wanted to rebuild through draft |
You seem to be enamored with the short term, the same thing that, ironically, yinoma sometimes is as well. Mitch won't trade these youngsters until he feels he has a good idea what they will become. That is based on 15 years of observing Mitch and his actions. If a year or two in Mitch believes that one or more will be average, he will look to move them. If he feels they will be special, he won't. But unless there is another Gasol trade out there, he won't move any until he gets a good feel for what they might become. If that means no playoffs this season, so be it. TWC is a signed deal, there is no audition for them. There will continue to be a season ticket waiting list. Jim is going nowhere. There are no reasons for the FO to panic on these youngsters and Mitch's methodology is to wait and see with young players. |
And look what we traded in the Gasol/Dwight deals. No one had any idea that Marc would be an all-star, but the main pieces were expiring deals. We pawned off Bynum at the right time (and didn't when Kobe wanted him gone in 2007).
I'm pretty confident 2/3 of the guys will be with us by 2017, likely all 3.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
22
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Serena Winters @SerenaWinters · 42s43 seconds ago
Mitch Kupchak says he wants to set blueprint this season, wants young core to develop, and then they can "add more talent next year."
|
From the horse's mouth folks. Good thread yinomes  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 22 wrote: | | Quote: | Serena Winters @SerenaWinters · 42s43 seconds ago
Mitch Kupchak says he wants to set blueprint this season, wants young core to develop, and then they can "add more talent next year."
|
From the horse's mouth folks. Good thread yinomes |
Yeah, it makes total sense.
If the rooks develop so well, then it's a good idea to keep them b/c of their contracts AND use cap space to chase stars.
We are in a great position, ergo my positive outlook for the franchise in the next 2-3 years.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
22
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | 22 wrote: | | Quote: | Serena Winters @SerenaWinters · 42s43 seconds ago
Mitch Kupchak says he wants to set blueprint this season, wants young core to develop, and then they can "add more talent next year."
|
From the horse's mouth folks. Good thread yinomes |
Yeah, it makes total sense.
If the rooks develop so well, then it's a good idea to keep them b/c of their contracts AND use cap space to chase stars.
We are in a great position, ergo my positive outlook for the franchise in the next 2-3 years. |
Exactly. Another tidbit
| Quote: | Eric Pincus @EricPincus · 54s55 seconds ago
Kupchak: Choosing not to address the Jim Buss timeline - but said team hasn't rushed to trade youth to add "winning" vets
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess the Lakers have put a structure in place to merge rebuild via draft and free agency (traditional). That's the sensible thing to do.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dcarter4kobe
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 17674
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Things would be looking a lot more brighter if we actually had our pick next year. Still don't see too manys in the west finishing with more L's than us
_________________
"He's a Zen master, so he can speak to you, and he doesn't need a microphone; you can hear him in your head, 'Ron, don't shoot, don't shoot.' Whatever, pow, three. I love the Zen, though." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
22
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dcarter4kobe wrote: | | Things would be looking a lot more brighter if we actually had our pick next year. Still don't see too manys in the west finishing with more L's than us |
having another pick would moreso help us in trades. We have enough young talent |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dcarter4kobe
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 17674
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 22 wrote: | | dcarter4kobe wrote: | | Things would be looking a lot more brighter if we actually had our pick next year. Still don't see too manys in the west finishing with more L's than us |
having another pick would moreso help us in trades. We have enough young talent |
I expect that pick to fall somewhere between 5-8. Would be another great young player to have on the team or another asset. I don't think we're in the position to be saying we have enough young talent right now
_________________
"He's a Zen master, so he can speak to you, and he doesn't need a microphone; you can hear him in your head, 'Ron, don't shoot, don't shoot.' Whatever, pow, three. I love the Zen, though." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
22
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dcarter4kobe wrote: | | 22 wrote: | | dcarter4kobe wrote: | | Things would be looking a lot more brighter if we actually had our pick next year. Still don't see too manys in the west finishing with more L's than us |
having another pick would moreso help us in trades. We have enough young talent |
I expect that pick to fall somewhere between 5-8. Would be another great young player to have on the team or another asset. I don't think we're in the position to be saying we have enough young talent right now |
I do. You can only develop so much talent. A team will of top draft picks will never develop into anything. See Philly.
We have
Clarkson
Randle
Russell
Upshaw
Black
Nance
(all with 1st round talent) Potentially A. Brown and Holmes too |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dcarter4kobe
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 17674
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most of those guys will be solid 3-9 players on a team. We are still missing that top option. That could come with that pick
_________________
"He's a Zen master, so he can speak to you, and he doesn't need a microphone; you can hear him in your head, 'Ron, don't shoot, don't shoot.' Whatever, pow, three. I love the Zen, though." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
