|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Who you got after Fultz? |
| Lonzo Ball |
|
75% |
[ 315 ] |
| Josh Jackson |
|
15% |
[ 64 ] |
| Jayson Tatum |
|
1% |
[ 8 ] |
| De'Aaron Fox |
|
4% |
[ 20 ] |
| Malik Monk |
|
1% |
[ 5 ] |
| Jonathan Isaac |
|
0% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 416 |
|
| Author |
Message |
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nash wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: |
Oh Nash. Would it surprise you that Magic is my all time favorite player? |
Not a bit.
It is really easy to understand why Magic is the all time favorite player of someone. By the way he is my favorite PG and almost never dunked it.
Do you really believe the athletic PG archetype is antiquated? I'm not a big fan of Westbrook, but a high skilled player with his athleticism would be insane. I believe taking it hard to the rack is part of the game, throwing a lob every now and then, things like that help and that is why I would like to pair Russell with someone able to do those things. I believe Russell would have an easier time passing from the SG spot. The problem I see pairing him and Ball is that in half court this may be also the best role for Ball. |
Who are these "athletic PG archetypes" from the old days? These are the Top 20 assist guys in NBA history. Who exactly are we talking about?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nash wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: |
Oh Nash. Would it surprise you that Magic is my all time favorite player? |
Not a bit.
It is really easy to understand why Magic is the all time favorite player of someone. By the way he is my favorite PG and almost never dunked it.
Do you really believe the athletic PG archetype is antiquated? I'm not a big fan of Westbrook, but a high skilled player with his athleticism would be insane. I believe taking it hard to the rack is part of the game, throwing a lob every now and then, things like that help and that is why I would like to pair Russell with someone able to do those things. I believe Russell would have an easier time passing from the SG spot. The problem I see pairing him and Ball is that in half court this may be also the best role for Ball. |
The whole "he has to break down his man like AI but then dunk it like WB but also have 10+apt" line of thinking is just not what today's NBA is predicated upon. WB is the absolute exception. I want smart players and if they happen to be athletic and can break people off the dribble even better (which is why I am a fan of Fultz who can represent the best of many worlds).
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dao
Star Player
Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | nash wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: |
No, I don't think we have a future all-time great from a skills perspective.
I also think it's notable that the athletic guys w/skills that have been historically dominant are wings. That's where it's a lot more important IMO. |
The role I see Dlo playing in the future if he can make his shooting % look as good as the arc he puts on the ball when he shooting is Klay Thompson role with better passing skills. I've told it before, I believe he can be an all star, second or third option on a winning program in his prime. When we talk about Paul George, it is not like we are going to trade Dlo for the first offer, PG is an all star, legit two way player and a sure thing that is still not old.
Dlo is our most skilled player, most would agree that Ingram has greater upside because he is younger, has elite size/length, high IQ and a fair level of athleticism, I don't think we can compare his skillset to Dlo. Russell is a keeper, but not untouchable IMHO and PG13 is someone I would trade him for. |
I think the Klay comparison undersells Thompson's ability as a shooter. Russell isn't that, but in a larger sense I understand and don't take issue with where you're coming from.
I wouldn't trade Russell or Ingram for PG, because we simply don't have enough assets yet. If we REALLY want to hit, to REALLY contend for a title in the next 3-5 years, it's gonna be with PG coming here in Free Agency next offseason. Then trade Russell, Ingram, or whomever you need to to make a run.
But trading a top asset (Top 3, Ingram, Russell) for PG now leaves us where exactly? What are we gonna accomplish from there? |
Say we keep the pick this year. There are four possible scenarios with regard to Paul George.
1. We keep our assets, and George decides to sign here in 2018.
2. We trade one top asset plus filler (e.g. pick+Randle+Clarkson) for George, and he resigns in 2018.
3. We don't trade for George, and he signs elsewhere in 2018.
4. We trade for him, and he burns us in 2018 by pulling a Dwight.
The order listed is in my opinion the descending order of preference from our perspective. Ideally, we keep all of our assets and sign him in 2018. However, there is obviously risk associated with this scenario. We would not be in position to offer him the largest possible contract in 2018.
If we traded for him without giving up Russell/Ingram, we should have enough talent on the roster to not worry about him pulling a Dwight, especially since we'd be able to offer him the largest possible contract. A trade of Randle/Clarkson/pick for George would still leave us with enough cap space to sign a max free agent in addition to George. Does this scenario make us a title contender in the next 3-5 years? Probably not. But we'd be in better shape than scenario 3 imo. And unless the FO has inside scoup that George absolutely wants to be a Laker, scanario 1 is still a bit of a pipe dream. We'd be a strong contender for him, but if a good team trades for him and can offer him a larger contract, we will be left out in the cold.
Hmmm. Now that I think about it, George's window is around 5 years. If we can't construct a contender in that time frame, I certainly see the merit in keeping the pick rather than going for the quick fix in George. It is tough to envision ANY scenario where we could be better than GS in the next four years. But you never know, one key injury is all it takes if we at least get ourselves in the conversation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nash
Star Player
Joined: 23 Oct 2001
Posts: 8194
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | nash wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: |
Oh Nash. Would it surprise you that Magic is my all time favorite player? |
Not a bit.
It is really easy to understand why Magic is the all time favorite player of someone. By the way he is my favorite PG and almost never dunked it.
Do you really believe the athletic PG archetype is antiquated? I'm not a big fan of Westbrook, but a high skilled player with his athleticism would be insane. I believe taking it hard to the rack is part of the game, throwing a lob every now and then, things like that help and that is why I would like to pair Russell with someone able to do those things. I believe Russell would have an easier time passing from the SG spot. The problem I see pairing him and Ball is that in half court this may be also the best role for Ball. |
The whole "he has to break down his man like AI but then dunk it like WB but also have 10+apt" line of thinking is just not what today's NBA is predicated upon. WB is the absolute exception. I want smart players and if they happen to be athletic and can break people off the dribble even better (which is why I am a fan of Fultz who can represent the best of many worlds). |
I like Fultz too.
Pacing the game for him is a choice, he is not elite, but has very good athleticism alongside a very good skillset. Legit prospect, I would love to draft him. After watching a lot of video footage I think he can work alongside Russell if they find a way to make it work with just one ball on the court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dao wrote: | Say we keep the pick this year. There are four possible scenarios with regard to Paul George.
1. We keep our assets, and George decides to sign here in 2018.
2. We trade one top asset plus filler (e.g. pick+Randle+Clarkson) for George, and he resigns in 2018.
3. We don't trade for George, and he signs elsewhere in 2018.
4. We trade for him, and he burns us in 2018 by pulling a Dwight.
The order listed is in my opinion the descending order of preference from our perspective. Ideally, we keep all of our assets and sign him in 2018. However, there is obviously risk associated with this scenario. We would not be in position to offer him the largest possible contract in 2018.
If we traded for him without giving up Russell/Ingram, we should have enough talent on the roster to not worry about him pulling a Dwight, especially since we'd be able to offer him the largest possible contract. A trade of Randle/Clarkson/pick for George would still leave us with enough cap space to sign a max free agent in addition to George. Does this scenario make us a title contender in the next 3-5 years? Probably not. But we'd be in better shape than scenario 3 imo. And unless the FO has inside scoup that George absolutely wants to be a Laker, scanario 1 is still a bit of a pipe dream. We'd be a strong contender for him, but if a good team trades for him and can offer him a larger contract, we will be left out in the cold.
Hmmm. Now that I think about it, George's window is around 5 years. If we can't construct a contender in that time frame, I certainly see the merit in keeping the pick rather than going for the quick fix in George. It is tough to envision ANY scenario where we could be better than GS in the next four years. But you never know, one key injury is all it takes if we at least get ourselves in the conversation. |
Nice job of laying things out. I think you're a championship contender if you're a Top 3-4 team, and I have a hard time envisioning a route to that if we trade anything of significance for him.
I'm struck by the idea of "Paul George's window." Paul George is really, really good, but how often does a team win the championship with a guy like Paul George as their best player? That's not to say that we shouldn't pursue him, but I fall well short of "we have to get this guy and build around him." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DangeRuss
Star Player
Joined: 10 Feb 2016
Posts: 1418
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dao wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | nash wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: |
No, I don't think we have a future all-time great from a skills perspective.
I also think it's notable that the athletic guys w/skills that have been historically dominant are wings. That's where it's a lot more important IMO. |
The role I see Dlo playing in the future if he can make his shooting % look as good as the arc he puts on the ball when he shooting is Klay Thompson role with better passing skills. I've told it before, I believe he can be an all star, second or third option on a winning program in his prime. When we talk about Paul George, it is not like we are going to trade Dlo for the first offer, PG is an all star, legit two way player and a sure thing that is still not old.
Dlo is our most skilled player, most would agree that Ingram has greater upside because he is younger, has elite size/length, high IQ and a fair level of athleticism, I don't think we can compare his skillset to Dlo. Russell is a keeper, but not untouchable IMHO and PG13 is someone I would trade him for. |
I think the Klay comparison undersells Thompson's ability as a shooter. Russell isn't that, but in a larger sense I understand and don't take issue with where you're coming from.
I wouldn't trade Russell or Ingram for PG, because we simply don't have enough assets yet. If we REALLY want to hit, to REALLY contend for a title in the next 3-5 years, it's gonna be with PG coming here in Free Agency next offseason. Then trade Russell, Ingram, or whomever you need to to make a run.
But trading a top asset (Top 3, Ingram, Russell) for PG now leaves us where exactly? What are we gonna accomplish from there? |
Say we keep the pick this year. There are four possible scenarios with regard to Paul George.
1. We keep our assets, and George decides to sign here in 2018.
2. We trade one top asset plus filler (e.g. pick+Randle+Clarkson) for George, and he resigns in 2018.
3. We don't trade for George, and he signs elsewhere in 2018.
4. We trade for him, and he burns us in 2018 by pulling a Dwight.
The order listed is in my opinion the descending order of preference from our perspective. Ideally, we keep all of our assets and sign him in 2018. However, there is obviously risk associated with this scenario. We would not be in position to offer him the largest possible contract in 2018.
If we traded for him without giving up Russell/Ingram, we should have enough talent on the roster to not worry about him pulling a Dwight, especially since we'd be able to offer him the largest possible contract. A trade of Randle/Clarkson/pick for George would still leave us with enough cap space to sign a max free agent in addition to George. Does this scenario make us a title contender in the next 3-5 years? Probably not. But we'd be in better shape than scenario 3 imo. And unless the FO has inside scoup that George absolutely wants to be a Laker, scanario 1 is still a bit of a pipe dream. We'd be a strong contender for him, but if a good team trades for him and can offer him a larger contract, we will be left out in the cold.
Hmmm. Now that I think about it, George's window is around 5 years. If we can't construct a contender in that time frame, I certainly see the merit in keeping the pick rather than going for the quick fix in George. It is tough to envision ANY scenario where we could be better than GS in the next four years. But you never know, one key injury is all it takes if we at least get ourselves in the conversation. |
Randle isn't simply filler, he's got just as much potential or close as our other guys and should be considered a major piece to our current core imo. I think early on last season when we were 10-10 and doing well, an argument could be made that Randle was our best player.. I don't value him as much as a top 3 pick, Ingram, or Dlo, but he's far from filler material. Also although I don't like Clarkson much at all, he's still got some value as well, actually from what I hear on tv, in the media and from other fanbases, he's our best player lmao. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Four Decade Bandwagon
Star Player
Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Posts: 8150
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | Four Decade Bandwagon wrote: | I agree with the logic of your comment. Same as I understand the logic of
the tanking for lottery percentages argument.
But when it comes down to it I would gladly make the trade for George (or Butler) if it was a fair trade. "Fair" being the debatable question.
Some variation of Top3 / Randle/ Clarkson/ Black/ #28 and I can accept the risk that George would re-sign.
I agree that keeping Ingram and Russell is important. Team would be improved significantly this year with additions being added to the roster of George, #28 and a $25M free agent.
IMO a PG like Lowry, Hill, Holiday or Teague makes the team dangerous and competitive. Not certain where it leads but a jump from 25 wins to 45 wins is possible with that roster and Walton's 2nd year. |
I'm just trying to imagine a team w/say PG13, Holiday, + Ingram + Russell, after the trade that you suggest here. I have a hard time seeing that team contending in the next few years. I just don't think it's enough.
Add a Top 3 pick & Randle to that team and I think you have at least enough assets there to build a contender...even if you end up trading all the young guys, in fact. |
I am not suggesting that all those assets are the price for George.
Those are just he most discussed and IMO most likely assets I would prefer included. Big question will be if the FO agrees or is willing to include other assets? Future draft choices ? Other young players?
To counter you point. Would Top 3 / #28 and Clarkson be enough for Indy? Include Black as an expiring or young player ? Perhaps Randle can remain. I certainly would prefer it.
I understand the desire to just wait for George to hit free agency. Just do not think the Lakers FO will be that patient. Whether fans like it or not I am preparing for the moves I expect to be coming.
How lopsided or fair the deals are will be dependent on how desperate Magic, Jeanie and Pelinka will be to bring an All-Star to the team. This is why I laugh when I see the "this is all I would give" or"take it or leave it" quotes from fans proposing trades. Our motivation is so different then the Lakers management. As much respect as I give them I find it hard to believe they will be willing to walk away from a trade when the negotiations get tough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MJST
Retired Number
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26309
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | dao wrote: | Say we keep the pick this year. There are four possible scenarios with regard to Paul George.
1. We keep our assets, and George decides to sign here in 2018.
2. We trade one top asset plus filler (e.g. pick+Randle+Clarkson) for George, and he resigns in 2018.
3. We don't trade for George, and he signs elsewhere in 2018.
4. We trade for him, and he burns us in 2018 by pulling a Dwight.
The order listed is in my opinion the descending order of preference from our perspective. Ideally, we keep all of our assets and sign him in 2018. However, there is obviously risk associated with this scenario. We would not be in position to offer him the largest possible contract in 2018.
If we traded for him without giving up Russell/Ingram, we should have enough talent on the roster to not worry about him pulling a Dwight, especially since we'd be able to offer him the largest possible contract. A trade of Randle/Clarkson/pick for George would still leave us with enough cap space to sign a max free agent in addition to George. Does this scenario make us a title contender in the next 3-5 years? Probably not. But we'd be in better shape than scenario 3 imo. And unless the FO has inside scoup that George absolutely wants to be a Laker, scanario 1 is still a bit of a pipe dream. We'd be a strong contender for him, but if a good team trades for him and can offer him a larger contract, we will be left out in the cold.
Hmmm. Now that I think about it, George's window is around 5 years. If we can't construct a contender in that time frame, I certainly see the merit in keeping the pick rather than going for the quick fix in George. It is tough to envision ANY scenario where we could be better than GS in the next four years. But you never know, one key injury is all it takes if we at least get ourselves in the conversation. |
Nice job of laying things out. I think you're a championship contender if you're a Top 3-4 team, and I have a hard time envisioning a route to that if we trade anything of significance for him.
I'm struck by the idea of "Paul George's window." Paul George is really, really good, but how often does a team win the championship with a guy like Paul George as their best player? That's not to say that we shouldn't pursue him, but I fall well short of "we have to get this guy and build around him." |
Paul George is the "Ray Allen" of a big 3 trade. Not the Kevin Garnett or even the Paul Pierce.
Paul George would do best on a team where there's already a number 1 option, or even two.
Like Paul George would do great on Houston as a 2nd option to Harden, he'd do great on Boston with Isaiah there and the lineup they've built. Heck he'd even do fine on the Clippers depending on who's there.
But he's going to do more getting the max for a team that already has one on it and is a piece away from doing some damage. Not a 26 win team that has absolutely no chance of also getting a "Batman" for him in the amount of time before his contract is up and will watch him waltz in the off-season to a team that already has a batman AND the cap space AND is further along.
The list of teams with cap space in 2018
Houston Rockets
Boston Celtics
New Orleans Pelicans
Washington Wizards
Miami Heat
San Antonio Spurs
Sigh and Trade options
Oklahoma City Thunder
_________________
How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DancingBarry
Editor-in-Chief
Joined: 07 Sep 2001
Posts: 40198
Location: O.C.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Four Decade Bandwagon wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | Four Decade Bandwagon wrote: | I agree with the logic of your comment. Same as I understand the logic of
the tanking for lottery percentages argument.
But when it comes down to it I would gladly make the trade for George (or Butler) if it was a fair trade. "Fair" being the debatable question.
Some variation of Top3 / Randle/ Clarkson/ Black/ #28 and I can accept the risk that George would re-sign.
I agree that keeping Ingram and Russell is important. Team would be improved significantly this year with additions being added to the roster of George, #28 and a $25M free agent.
IMO a PG like Lowry, Hill, Holiday or Teague makes the team dangerous and competitive. Not certain where it leads but a jump from 25 wins to 45 wins is possible with that roster and Walton's 2nd year. |
I'm just trying to imagine a team w/say PG13, Holiday, + Ingram + Russell, after the trade that you suggest here. I have a hard time seeing that team contending in the next few years. I just don't think it's enough.
Add a Top 3 pick & Randle to that team and I think you have at least enough assets there to build a contender...even if you end up trading all the young guys, in fact. |
I am not suggesting that all those assets are the price for George.
Those are just he most discussed and IMO most likely assets I would prefer included. Big question will be if the FO agrees or is willing to include other assets? Future draft choices ? Other young players?
To counter you point. Would Top 3 / #28 and Clarkson be enough for Indy? Include Black as an expiring or young player ? Perhaps Randle can remain. I certainly would prefer it.
I understand the desire to just wait for George to hit free agency. Just do not think the Lakers FO will be that patient. Whether fans like it or not I am preparing for the moves I expect to be coming.
How lopsided or fair the deals are will be dependent on how desperate Magic, Jeanie and Pelinka will be to bring an All-Star to the team. This is why I laugh when I see the "this is all I would give" or"take it or leave it" quotes from fans proposing trades. Our motivation is so different then the Lakers management. As much respect as I give them I find it hard to believe they will be willing to walk away from a trade when the negotiations get tough. |
Top 3 pick should absolutely be enough. PG is not an untouchable and you have to give up a star to get a top 3 pick...that's usually been the case, but now more than ever with the current CBA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Four Decade Bandwagon wrote: | I am not suggesting that all those assets are the price for George.
Those are just he most discussed and IMO most likely assets I would prefer included. Big question will be if the FO agrees or is willing to include other assets? Future draft choices ? Other young players?
To counter you point. Would Top 3 / #28 and Clarkson be enough for Indy? Include Black as an expiring or young player ? Perhaps Randle can remain. I certainly would prefer it.
I understand the desire to just wait for George to hit free agency. Just do not think the Lakers FO will be that patient. Whether fans like it or not I am preparing for the moves I expect to be coming.
How lopsided or fair the deals are will be dependent on how desperate Magic, Jeanie and Pelinka will be to bring an All-Star to the team. This is why I laugh when I see the "this is all I would give" or"take it or leave it" quotes from fans proposing trades. Our motivation is so different then the Lakers management. As much respect as I give them I find it hard to believe they will be willing to walk away from a trade when the negotiations get tough. |
I'm expecting this, but I'm not accepting this, if that makes sense.
My biggest source of hope is Pelinka, who's spent an entire career in negotiations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerLogic
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 17886
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Honestly, there is no conceivable way to trade our top 2 assets and get back to contention in the next 5 years. This is especially true with the MozDeng contracts.
Our only legitimate hope is to keep the top 3 pick and sign someone like PG the next year. In addition, DLo and Ingram have to become borderline All-Stars by that point.
Bottom line is, we have to build a team to beat GSW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dao
Star Player
Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DancingBarry wrote: | | Four Decade Bandwagon wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | Four Decade Bandwagon wrote: | I agree with the logic of your comment. Same as I understand the logic of
the tanking for lottery percentages argument.
But when it comes down to it I would gladly make the trade for George (or Butler) if it was a fair trade. "Fair" being the debatable question.
Some variation of Top3 / Randle/ Clarkson/ Black/ #28 and I can accept the risk that George would re-sign.
I agree that keeping Ingram and Russell is important. Team would be improved significantly this year with additions being added to the roster of George, #28 and a $25M free agent.
IMO a PG like Lowry, Hill, Holiday or Teague makes the team dangerous and competitive. Not certain where it leads but a jump from 25 wins to 45 wins is possible with that roster and Walton's 2nd year. |
I'm just trying to imagine a team w/say PG13, Holiday, + Ingram + Russell, after the trade that you suggest here. I have a hard time seeing that team contending in the next few years. I just don't think it's enough.
Add a Top 3 pick & Randle to that team and I think you have at least enough assets there to build a contender...even if you end up trading all the young guys, in fact. |
I am not suggesting that all those assets are the price for George.
Those are just he most discussed and IMO most likely assets I would prefer included. Big question will be if the FO agrees or is willing to include other assets? Future draft choices ? Other young players?
To counter you point. Would Top 3 / #28 and Clarkson be enough for Indy? Include Black as an expiring or young player ? Perhaps Randle can remain. I certainly would prefer it.
I understand the desire to just wait for George to hit free agency. Just do not think the Lakers FO will be that patient. Whether fans like it or not I am preparing for the moves I expect to be coming.
How lopsided or fair the deals are will be dependent on how desperate Magic, Jeanie and Pelinka will be to bring an All-Star to the team. This is why I laugh when I see the "this is all I would give" or"take it or leave it" quotes from fans proposing trades. Our motivation is so different then the Lakers management. As much respect as I give them I find it hard to believe they will be willing to walk away from a trade when the negotiations get tough. |
Top 3 pick should absolutely be enough. PG is not an untouchable and you have to give up a star to get a top 3 pick...that's usually been the case, but now more than ever with the current CBA. |
yeah, the more I think about it, the more I agree with this sentiment. The #3 overall pick alone should be enough for George. Throw Clarkson in as well to balance salaries a little bit. But throwing Randle into the trade is probably overkill on our part. The #3 overall pick is a very valuable asset, and should be enough for a player with only one more year on his deal. Other than the Celtics, who can beat that offer?
#3+Clarkson for George. You might have to throw in #28 as well realistically, but hopefully not. If the pick is top 2, keep the pick and roll with the youth movement.
I'd then try to package Randle+#28 to sneak back into the lottery. I'd rather trade Randle now than have to give him 20 million per next offseason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That is a dumb reason to trade Randle.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Four Decade Bandwagon
Star Player
Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Posts: 8150
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | Four Decade Bandwagon wrote: | I am not suggesting that all those assets are the price for George.
Those are just he most discussed and IMO most likely assets I would prefer included. Big question will be if the FO agrees or is willing to include other assets? Future draft choices ? Other young players?
To counter you point. Would Top 3 / #28 and Clarkson be enough for Indy? Include Black as an expiring or young player ? Perhaps Randle can remain. I certainly would prefer it.
I understand the desire to just wait for George to hit free agency. Just do not think the Lakers FO will be that patient. Whether fans like it or not I am preparing for the moves I expect to be coming.
How lopsided or fair the deals are will be dependent on how desperate Magic, Jeanie and Pelinka will be to bring an All-Star to the team. This is why I laugh when I see the "this is all I would give" or"take it or leave it" quotes from fans proposing trades. Our motivation is so different then the Lakers management. As much respect as I give them I find it hard to believe they will be willing to walk away from a trade when the negotiations get tough. |
I'm expecting this, but I'm not accepting this, if that makes sense.
My biggest source of hope is Pelinka, who's spent an entire career in negotiations. |
I understand your conflict completely. I much prefer the long term player development approach. Keep the current roster, use whatever picks available and add another in FA. Keep building.
Even if a trade is made for a vet. I want the best possible trade. What is the reality of any blockbuster trade is the problem.
Just think there is a a very real possibility that is not how the Lakers FO envision the future. Pelinka may be an experienced negotiator. But what is he negotiating for? What is the Lakers highest priority? It is likely much different then my vision of the off-season.
Lakers are a business. Pelinka and Johnson are in place to make that business profitable. What is the priority to satisfy the advertisers, marketing and their own egos? A young team or one with a coveted vet?
Do they want to have an young improving 35 win team or an 8th seed? Are they marketing any of the current Lakers or a top 3 pick or the "Magical" acquisition of George?
This front office has a lot of questions to answer IMO. How they see the Lakers future and which path they take to get there is going to be interesting as ever. Hopefully your confidence in Pelinka is rewarded with a lowball Laker favored trade for George. Just not sure that is possible. They almost have to make a big trade to justify their own existence the way the FO change occurred. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bonkers
Star Player
Joined: 25 Apr 2013
Posts: 6071
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Frank Jackson and Hamidou Diallo declaring for the draft but not signing agents |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bonkers wrote: | | Frank Jackson and Hamidou Diallo declaring for the draft but not signing agents |
had a feeling Diallo would at least declare |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | Four Decade Bandwagon wrote: | I am not suggesting that all those assets are the price for George.
Those are just he most discussed and IMO most likely assets I would prefer included. Big question will be if the FO agrees or is willing to include other assets? Future draft choices ? Other young players?
To counter you point. Would Top 3 / #28 and Clarkson be enough for Indy? Include Black as an expiring or young player ? Perhaps Randle can remain. I certainly would prefer it.
I understand the desire to just wait for George to hit free agency. Just do not think the Lakers FO will be that patient. Whether fans like it or not I am preparing for the moves I expect to be coming.
How lopsided or fair the deals are will be dependent on how desperate Magic, Jeanie and Pelinka will be to bring an All-Star to the team. This is why I laugh when I see the "this is all I would give" or"take it or leave it" quotes from fans proposing trades. Our motivation is so different then the Lakers management. As much respect as I give them I find it hard to believe they will be willing to walk away from a trade when the negotiations get tough. |
I'm expecting this, but I'm not accepting this, if that makes sense.
My biggest source of hope is Pelinka, who's spent an entire career in negotiations. |
Well, if Jeanie's post Jim-drama propaganda is to be believed, that's exactly what they did with the Cousins trade. I don't know what to think at this point, but its fair to be pessimistic I think, at the least.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: | | Well, if Jeanie's post Jim-drama propaganda is to be believed, that's exactly what they did with the Cousins trade. I don't know what to think at this point, but its fair to be pessimistic I think, at the least. |
This is something that I've been thinking about. There are two instances of post-Jim propaganda that have come out (one about Cousins, the other about Millsap), where the point was "we kept Jim from trading our young talent to win more now."
It's food for thought if nothing else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: | | Well, if Jeanie's post Jim-drama propaganda is to be believed, that's exactly what they did with the Cousins trade. I don't know what to think at this point, but its fair to be pessimistic I think, at the least. |
This is something that I've been thinking about. There are two instances of post-Jim propaganda that have come out (one about Cousins, the other about Millsap), where the point was "we kept Jim from trading our young talent to win more now."
It's food for thought if nothing else. |
Yup. Of course this was after the trial balloon of an accusation that he DIDN'T get Cousins. Kind if like how he and Mitch kept Jeanie in the dark but here's everything they were doing. In my experience, the truth tends to be simple, uncomplicated, even when the circumstances aren't. When you have to start parsing all the legs of the tale, you're generally getting spun.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cochese
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Apr 2016
Posts: 957
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, Diallo declaring for the draft without ever having played a game, lol. I love it. it will be very interesting to see where he goes if he stays in the draft.
Its all hindsight, but I think Giles might have been better off not playing this year and then declaring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: | | Well, if Jeanie's post Jim-drama propaganda is to be believed, that's exactly what they did with the Cousins trade. I don't know what to think at this point, but its fair to be pessimistic I think, at the least. |
This is something that I've been thinking about. There are two instances of post-Jim propaganda that have come out (one about Cousins, the other about Millsap), where the point was "we kept Jim from trading our young talent to win more now."
It's food for thought if nothing else. |
Yup. Of course this was after the trial balloon of an accusation that he DIDN'T get Cousins. Kind if like how he and Mitch kept Jeanie in the dark but here's everything they were doing. In my experience, the truth tends to be simple, uncomplicated, even when the circumstances aren't. When you have to start parsing all the legs of the tale, you're generally getting spun. |
The idea that we're getting spun is obvious, but what I find interesting is that the way they chose to do it, presenting themselves as saving the young core. They could've run with any number of narratives but I think it's informative that's the one they chose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bard207
Star Player
Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 7713
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: | | Well, if Jeanie's post Jim-drama propaganda is to be believed, that's exactly what they did with the Cousins trade. I don't know what to think at this point, but its fair to be pessimistic I think, at the least. |
This is something that I've been thinking about. There are two instances of post-Jim propaganda that have come out (one about Cousins, the other about Millsap), where the point was "we kept Jim from trading our young talent to win more now."
It's food for thought if nothing else. |
Yup. Of course this was after the trial balloon of an accusation that he DIDN'T get Cousins. Kind if like how he and Mitch kept Jeanie in the dark but here's everything they were doing. In my experience, the truth tends to be simple, uncomplicated, even when the circumstances aren't. When you have to start parsing all the legs of the tale, you're generally getting spun. |
The idea that we're getting spun is obvious, but what I find interesting is that the way they chose to do it, presenting themselves as saving the young core. They could've run with any number of narratives but I think it's informative that's the one they chose. |
If they didn't have Pelinka (or similar) in the FO, would you expect
>
<
=
to Phil in New York? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheBlackMamba
Star Player
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 9057
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: | | Well, if Jeanie's post Jim-drama propaganda is to be believed, that's exactly what they did with the Cousins trade. I don't know what to think at this point, but its fair to be pessimistic I think, at the least. |
This is something that I've been thinking about. There are two instances of post-Jim propaganda that have come out (one about Cousins, the other about Millsap), where the point was "we kept Jim from trading our young talent to win more now."
It's food for thought if nothing else. |
Yup. Of course this was after the trial balloon of an accusation that he DIDN'T get Cousins. Kind if like how he and Mitch kept Jeanie in the dark but here's everything they were doing. In my experience, the truth tends to be simple, uncomplicated, even when the circumstances aren't. When you have to start parsing all the legs of the tale, you're generally getting spun. |
The idea that we're getting spun is obvious, but what I find interesting is that the way they chose to do it, presenting themselves as saving the young core. They could've run with any number of narratives but I think it's informative that's the one they chose. |
Maybe the scarier thing is that with each day, we seemingly get a new narrative. There's the story you mentioned about the new regime supposedly being against Jim and his desire to "cash in" our prospects for Cousins and Magic coming out and preaching patience and that we're going to build this thing the right way when he was first promoted (so, pro-youth movement). But then there's Jeannie crying about not having an All-Star next year and all the rumblings in the media about how her and Magic are going to go all in this summer to acquire ready-made talent (so, anti-youth movement and win now?). And some of the sources are people in the know, never mind the (bleep) that's coming straight from the horse's mouth itself.
Either we're being spun like you said, management actually has no idea what it's doing in terms of a concrete plan for the future, or more likely a combination of both. Whatever it is, without even having made any significant moves yet (disregarding the routine and expected Lou trade), the new regime is already lagging behind the old one in my eyes, and they're quickly losing credibility by the day after all the usual early promises that things would be different this time. These were not basketball team management savvy people to begin with, and they look even more poorly prepared and out of their element now with all crap that's leaked (more like flooded) into the media, whether real or not. Say what you want about Jim and Mitch and the on-court results of their leadership, but at least they handled their business in a professional manner and it didn't all play out on TV and the internet for everybody to see (oh wait, it actually did...when Jeannie allowed it to).
Sigh, we're destined for failure, aren't we? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crucifixion
Starting Rotation
Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 909
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sounds like Hamidou Diallo is entering this year's draft. Not hiring an agent. Where does he fall? 15? |
|
| 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
|
|
