|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Shaolin's Finest
Star Player
Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Posts: 1430
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| After this next road trip, I believe the remainder of the season the majority of our games will be played at home, so that will probably help us in the wins column as well. We've had a pretty rough schedule, a lot of road games, that coupled with injuries and being a young team with a new head coach makes our record worse than it should be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29286
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is a fantastic post from PK. It's applicable for this thread as well. It was in the stickied Pincus thread.
PK made the calculations before we lost to Dallas, and since then Nuggets are 1-1.
| P.K. wrote: | Some of you keep going on about making the playoffs
Let's talk about how improbable that is
Nugz (#8):17-24, .415 win rate, 41 games remaining
Blazers (#9): 19-27, .413 win rate, 36 games remaining
Lakers: 16-31, .340 win rate, 35 games remaining
IF the Nugz finish out at the same .415 rate, they'd finish with 34 wins. For the Lakers to beat that, they'd need 35 wins - meaning they'd have to finish their remaining 35 games with a 19-16 record (.543). They're suddenly going to start playing about 60% better then their current record? Let's put it another way, they've won 16 out of 47 games - is it really reasonable to expect them to win 19 out of the remaining 35?
IF the Blazers finish out at their current .413 rate, they'll finish with 34 (33.86) wins to. The math for the Lakers to catch the Blazers is almost exactly the same.
with 35 games left on the Lakers schedule, even improving to 45% for their remaining games (a 33% improvement over what they've done to-date, BTW) win rate would leave LAL with a record of only 32-50. Still short
EVEN IF, as one poster has stated, 1 of either the NUGZ or Blazers implodes or has all their players traded, the other team is still there. And, the probability math indicates the playoffs are out of reach now.
When you pass the halfway point of the season, the # of games that are left where you can dramatically change the standings becomes smaller and smaller. The Lakers would have to win over 55% of their remaining games to make this a possible scenario - not very likely when they're only winning 34% today.
Add to that the fact that the Blazers beat us pretty easily 119-128 on Jan 5th, and again on Jan 10th 108-87.
And the Nugs beat us on Jan 17th.
There is still a statistical chance LAL could do this - but it's highly unrealistic.
It's time to face up to that, start playing Ingram with the starters and start giving Zu major minutes. Build for next year, because the playoffs are not realistic.
|
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SGVL1
Starting Rotation
Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 845
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lakers would have to do a lot better than a little 10-10 repeat of the early season to have a shot. If the FO thinks they can still make the playoffs and leapfrog that many teams, then they're just as clueless as people on here say they are |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Runway8
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 22842
Location: La Jolla, San Diego
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:40 pm Post subject: Re: The True Anti-Tank Missile |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | At this moment, the Western Conference #8-15:
8. Nuggs (19-25)
9. Blazers (19-27)
10. Pels (18-27)
11. Kings (17-27)
12. Wolves (17-28)
13. Mavs (15-29)
14. Lakers (16-32)
15. Suns (15-30).
I can't remember the last time the West's 8-15 were so terrible and closely grouped.
One interesting note: Lakers amongst this group have played the most number of games (48). Mavs/Nuggs have only played 44 games. Put it this way, the Lakers have squeezed about a weeks' worth of additional games into their schedule. That's brutal.
The current anti-tank missile IMO for the FO is the likely mirage that they can make the playoffs. Ordinarily, in most years, by this point, teams are helplessly out of playoff contention and/or about to realize that. But this year, I feel (and maybe fear) we may stand pat during the trade deadline with the hope that we can just pull off another 10-10 run with the current group healthy (and legit injuries have derailed this team).
This is the true anti-tank, the poor win records of the #8-15 seeds in the West. Until there is more separation, this may continue well into March. |
Everyone eventually plays 82 games, so I just simply look at the losses. Nuggets have 7 less losses than the Lakers. That's a big lead. Yeah they could collapse, but it also has to culminate with the Lakers balling out, and based on that 49 pt loss... it's over. They don't have it in them this year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144462
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deathstroke wrote: | | Team doesn't even need to tank thanks to Mitch putting together another poorly talented team and the plethora of injuries. We need to scrap the bball front office and training staff |
They changed the training staff last offseason.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laker4life
Star Player
Joined: 26 Nov 2001
Posts: 7317
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Funkbot wrote: | Realistically the team could improve and finish strong. They will have so much more time to practice, including an entire week off for the ASB, that their defense will have to improve.
They played decent D to start of the season, coming in from the training camp. Then the horrible schedule hit and the injuries hit.
If DLO and Nance are in the mix, the team can finish strong with the extra practice time and try and make a move on the 8'th spot. |
I agree. We are only 4-5 games back.
No need to tank. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fontana3d
Star Player
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 3794
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laker4life wrote: | | Dr. Funkbot wrote: | Realistically the team could improve and finish strong. They will have so much more time to practice, including an entire week off for the ASB, that their defense will have to improve.
They played decent D to start of the season, coming in from the training camp. Then the horrible schedule hit and the injuries hit.
If DLO and Nance are in the mix, the team can finish strong with the extra practice time and try and make a move on the 8'th spot. |
I agree. We are only 4-5 games back.
No need to tank. |
Well we are tanking in Portland down 13 in the 3rd. Also if we try to fight for a playoff spot the pick goes to Philly and Orlando gets one in 2019. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJBaca
Star Player
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 2050
Location: Costa Rica
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't remember tank threads when I started following lg. I started here during the Shaq and Kobe era so of course no reason for a tank threAd, but we picked up Bynum with the number 10 pick and I don't recall the posters here cheering for a tank that year.
Rooting for your team to lose for whatever reason I find demoralizing but putting stats to it and getting excited about it? Very strange to me. I guess the future fan will root for wins until it starts looking bleak, then root for losses. I guess that's the new trend.
I will always come here it's a great site with some great information. I just don't get the tank . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MJST
Retired Number
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26321
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RJBaca wrote: | I don't remember tank threads when I started following lg. I started here during the Shaq and Kobe era so of course no reason for a tank threAd, but we picked up Bynum with the number 10 pick and I don't recall the posters here cheering for a tank that year.
Rooting for your team to lose for whatever reason I find demoralizing but putting stats to it and getting excited about it? Very strange to me. I guess the future fan will root for wins until it starts looking bleak, then root for losses. I guess that's the new trend.
I will always come here it's a great site with some great information. I just don't get the tank . |
Always sort of saw the fans that rushed to scream tank like their lives/happiness depended on it as not being able to cope with the prospect of losing that comes with progression, so are trying to convince themselves of something positive to come from it, almost celebratory.
Unfortunately that kind of mentality is a disease and the 'will' of some fans are easily crushed. The Lakers could start next season 15-13 but if we lose a game by 20 those same fans will jump on "START TO TANK NOW!! WE CAN GET (this person) in the draft."
The best thing that could happen to us this year is losing our pick. Because this mentality of "I can't deal with the process of losing and growing of a young team so I gotta convince myself that losing is a great thing cause we get a franchise star out of it!" has to end.
So maybe us finishing this season on a moderate note and losing our pick will silence those kind of threads forever.
Note: The same people screaming TANK every year are usually the same people that are impatient as [expletive] with the progression of our young talent, so much so that they look for quick fixes. So it's a bit of an oxymoron to not be able to deal with the process of a player growing and coming into their own fast enough so the solution is to try to get an even younger player who will take even more time to progress.
Essentially "THESE YOUNG KIDS AREN'T PROGRESSING FAST ENOUGH!!! Quick.. bring me some more!!"  But those SAME PEOPLE who are impatient about our young talent progressing will yell and scream if our young talent STARTED to progress and put us on a winning streak because it 'Jeopardizes the pick!'.
That's why it's a poisonous way of thinking and very addictive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RJBaca wrote: | I don't remember tank threads when I started following lg. I started here during the Shaq and Kobe era so of course no reason for a tank threAd, but we picked up Bynum with the number 10 pick and I don't recall the posters here cheering for a tank that year.
Rooting for your team to lose for whatever reason I find demoralizing but putting stats to it and getting excited about it? Very strange to me. I guess the future fan will root for wins until it starts looking bleak, then root for losses. I guess that's the new trend.
I will always come here it's a great site with some great information. I just don't get the tank . |
It's very difficult and I'm not supporting the tank this year, though functionally, we may end up being 2nd worst regardless. It's been very frustrating and disappointing to be a Lakers fan these past 4 years after being a fan for nearly 30 years.
I want to be completely optimistic but for the first time in a while, I'm not sure at all where this franchise is going. This is sort of the point of my thread, that the illusory lure of making the 8th seed (when statistically it's very unlikely) will likely drive the FO. Alternatively, rooting for the team to lose is just too much for me this year as I will root for wins every game.
I hope this is the last year our fanbase has to resort to rooting for wins as a coping mechanism, but Lakers basketball used to be fun. Now it's just sad. (Yet I remain a fan).
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Note: The same people screaming TANK every year are usually the same people that are impatient as [expletive] with the progression of our young talent, so much so that they look for quick fixes. So it's a bit of an oxymoron to not be able to deal with the process of a player growing and coming into their own fast enough so the solution is to try to get an even younger player who will take even more time to progress.
|
This is 100% true.
Each year folks want a 19 year old. We draft said 19 year old and the impatience begins...and the cycle repeats.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
frank70
Sixth Man
Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 74
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | Quote: | Note: The same people screaming TANK every year are usually the same people that are impatient as [expletive] with the progression of our young talent, so much so that they look for quick fixes. So it's a bit of an oxymoron to not be able to deal with the process of a player growing and coming into their own fast enough so the solution is to try to get an even younger player who will take even more time to progress.
|
This is 100% true.
Each year folks want a 19 year old. We draft said 19 year old and the impatience begins...and the cycle repeats. |
But you can pack two 19-year olds with high potential and trade them for a very good player in his prime.
So in the current state keeping the pick would open up options. If we get Fultz or Ball we could trade for instance Russell+Randle or the pick plus any player of our young core for an impact player and still have young players on the cupboard.
I simply don't get what a few more wins will bring this year. I don't think 30 wins make these group of players all of a sudden winners. Lakers still need assets, cause i fear that the current talent isn't enough to get back to the top.
Scenario: We keep the pick and package it with Randle or Ingram and a first rounder we maybe get for Lou for .... Paul George. Then we might get a meeting with Gordon Heyward. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Draper
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 28432
Location: LA --> Bay Area
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | 44TheLogo wrote: | you could argue that the chance for playoff experience against a true contending team like GS for our core would be better for their development than a 50/50 roll of the dice to keep our top 3 pick.
playoff basketball is a totally different animal, and even if we get swept in the series, there would be a LOT of learning going on in those 4 games and the preparation to those 4 games. |
I think many people would agree with that. But the prospects of actually making the playoffs are slim-to-none, even though ostensibly we look like we have a chance. I think that's the point being made. If 38 wins gets you to the playoffs and 26 wins gets you the #2 "seed" for the tank, then the Lakers trying to make the playoffs may put them in no man's land of, say, 32 wins.
Anyways, I think the true anti-tank missile is optics. Jim & Mitch don't have an excuse to tank again. |
If we're somehow good enough to evolve into a 32 win team, I'd take that over a better shot at a pick we already essentially gave up. Obviously we're not going to break 30 wins playing Lou/Swag ball as evidenced by last night, so any uptick in wins would have to be due to our young guys playing well. Which I would welcome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| frank70 wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | Quote: | Note: The same people screaming TANK every year are usually the same people that are impatient as [expletive] with the progression of our young talent, so much so that they look for quick fixes. So it's a bit of an oxymoron to not be able to deal with the process of a player growing and coming into their own fast enough so the solution is to try to get an even younger player who will take even more time to progress.
|
This is 100% true.
Each year folks want a 19 year old. We draft said 19 year old and the impatience begins...and the cycle repeats. |
But you can pack two 19-year olds with high potential and trade them for a very good player in his prime.
So in the current state keeping the pick would open up options. If we get Fultz or Ball we could trade for instance Russell+Randle or the pick plus any player of our young core for an impact player and still have young players on the cupboard.
I simply don't get what a few more wins will bring this year. I don't think 30 wins make these group of players all of a sudden winners. Lakers still need assets, cause i fear that the current talent isn't enough to get back to the top.
Scenario: We keep the pick and package it with Randle or Ingram and a first rounder we maybe get for Lou for .... Paul George. Then we might get a meeting with Gordon Heyward. |
I don't think we can out-bad the Nets who I think will give the Celtics a very good pick (at worst a 4th pick).
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144462
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RJBaca wrote: | I don't remember tank threads when I started following lg. I started here during the Shaq and Kobe era so of course no reason for a tank threAd, but we picked up Bynum with the number 10 pick and I don't recall the posters here cheering for a tank that year.
Rooting for your team to lose for whatever reason I find demoralizing but putting stats to it and getting excited about it? Very strange to me. I guess the future fan will root for wins until it starts looking bleak, then root for losses. I guess that's the new trend.
I will always come here it's a great site with some great information. I just don't get the tank . |
It is the fantasy sports influence, two birds in the bush are now better than one in the hand. Until those in the bush are actually here, then the new ones in the bush are better. It is easier to dream about the future than to actually live it.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | RJBaca wrote: | I don't remember tank threads when I started following lg. I started here during the Shaq and Kobe era so of course no reason for a tank threAd, but we picked up Bynum with the number 10 pick and I don't recall the posters here cheering for a tank that year.
Rooting for your team to lose for whatever reason I find demoralizing but putting stats to it and getting excited about it? Very strange to me. I guess the future fan will root for wins until it starts looking bleak, then root for losses. I guess that's the new trend.
I will always come here it's a great site with some great information. I just don't get the tank . |
It is the fantasy sports influence, two birds in the bush are now better than one in the hand. Until those in the bush are actually here, then the new ones in the bush are better. It is easier to dream about the future than to actually live it. |
I have no problem with all those that feel we should not tank, but something that is a little bothersome is the "honor stance" that is becoming popular on LG...or just taking shots at anyone that supports tanking without presenting an optimal option and how they feel there is tangible benefit in their plan. None of this...make a trade for a star or some other imaginary outcome.
Also the hedging....or the "let's define tank". Tanking is what it always has been....trading away mature assets that the FO does not consider part of the future for future assets, playing questionable future core players to reach a decision, and playing youth to expedite their development. The combination of these things usually results in losses...and is classic tanking. Let's cease pretending tanking has ever been about players trying to lose or the coach purposely putting them in poor position solely for the purpose of losing. So if you support "classic tanking", stop with the I don't support tanking, but.....
None of us are qualified to run an NBA organization, so it would be silly for me to feel like I have the answers and dismiss others, but I cant help but feel much of the anti-tanking is derived from the inability to recognize the environment has changed, and the old ways are less likely to be successful today. We had bad timing as most teams in the league were transitioning to the new environment, our superstar was winding down one of the greatest NBA careers. So here we are, and we have to react with the hand that we have been dealt. So if you are truly against tanking.....if we do, and successfully keep our pick...please be sure to remind everyone on draft night that if it was up to you, we would have never drafted Fultz, Ball, Tatum or whoever we select....but if the ping pong balls dont go our way, dont do the I told you so, unless you have put out a tangible alternative road to success. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PICKnPOP
Star Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 5377
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | RJBaca wrote: | I don't remember tank threads when I started following lg. I started here during the Shaq and Kobe era so of course no reason for a tank threAd, but we picked up Bynum with the number 10 pick and I don't recall the posters here cheering for a tank that year.
Rooting for your team to lose for whatever reason I find demoralizing but putting stats to it and getting excited about it? Very strange to me. I guess the future fan will root for wins until it starts looking bleak, then root for losses. I guess that's the new trend.
I will always come here it's a great site with some great information. I just don't get the tank . |
It is the fantasy sports influence, two birds in the bush are now better than one in the hand. Until those in the bush are actually here, then the new ones in the bush are better. It is easier to dream about the future than to actually live it. |
I have no problem with all those that feel we should not tank, but something that is a little bothersome is the "honor stance" that is becoming popular on LG...or just taking shots at anyone that supports tanking without presenting an optimal option and how they feel there is tangible benefit in their plan. None of this...make a trade for a star or some other imaginary outcome.
Also the hedging....or the "let's define tank". Tanking is what it always has been....trading away mature assets that the FO does not consider part of the future for future assets, playing questionable future core players to reach a decision, and playing youth to expedite their development. The combination of these things usually results in losses...and is classic tanking. Let's cease pretending tanking has ever been about players trying to lose or the coach purposely putting them in poor position solely for the purpose of losing. So if you support "classic tanking", stop with the I don't support tanking, but.....
None of us are qualified to run an NBA organization, so it would be silly for me to feel like I have the answers and dismiss others, but I cant help but feel much of the anti-tanking is derived from the inability to recognize the environment has changed, and the old ways are less likely to be successful today. We had bad timing as most teams in the league were transitioning to the new environment, our superstar was winding down one of the greatest NBA careers. So here we are, and we have to react with the hand that we have been dealt. So if you are truly against tanking.....if we do, and successfully keep our pick...please be sure to remind everyone on draft night that if it was up to you, we would have never drafted Fultz, Ball, Tatum or whoever we select....but if the ping pong balls dont go our way, dont do the I told you so, unless you have put out a tangible alternative road to success. |
Yup.
Additionally, it's silly to assume that everyone who supports the "tank" is immature and incapable of handling the developmental process of our young players. Personally, after watching philly's plan to rebuild through the draft and seeing how successful they have been doing so, it has become obvious to me that the quickest route to another championship is via the draft. Especially considering how unsuccessful we have been hoarding money for big name free agents every summer.
I believe it's time to recognize that our best chance of landing the next shaq, Kobe, or pau gasol will be through the NBA draft. Failure to retain our pick this season will delay our rebuilding process another two seasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shaolin's Finest
Star Player
Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Posts: 1430
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RJBaca wrote: | I don't remember tank threads when I started following lg. I started here during the Shaq and Kobe era so of course no reason for a tank threAd, but we picked up Bynum with the number 10 pick and I don't recall the posters here cheering for a tank that year.
Rooting for your team to lose for whatever reason I find demoralizing but putting stats to it and getting excited about it? Very strange to me. I guess the future fan will root for wins until it starts looking bleak, then root for losses. I guess that's the new trend.
I will always come here it's a great site with some great information. I just don't get the tank . |
There weren't tank threads because we were going to keep our pick regardless. We can only keep our pick this year if it lands 1-3, that's a big difference. If there weren't stipulations on our pick, or better protection, I doubt you would see a 58 page tank thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shaolin's Finest wrote: |
There weren't tank threads because we were going to keep our pick regardless. We can only keep our pick this year if it lands 1-3, that's a big difference. If there weren't stipulations on our pick, or better protection, I doubt you would see a 58 page tank thread. |
exactly.....very few LG'ers would support tanking if it was between the 7th pick and the 3rd.....or if it did not involve the 2019 1st Round pick also.
We would all be excited to get a Jonathan Isaac, Malik Monk or whatever player was available at that pick. Also, I think the pro tank group would be cut in half if it simply was only about this year or next year.
But its not....it is almost zero sum @ this point....get a top 3 pick this year and a likely mid round pick in 2019 vs. only getting a late lottery or mid round pick in 2018. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fracture
Star Player
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 9318
Location: Planet Terror
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | Shaolin's Finest wrote: |
There weren't tank threads because we were going to keep our pick regardless. We can only keep our pick this year if it lands 1-3, that's a big difference. If there weren't stipulations on our pick, or better protection, I doubt you would see a 58 page tank thread. |
exactly.....very few LG'ers would support tanking if it was between the 7th pick and the 3rd.....or if it did not involve the 2019 1st Round pick also.
We would all be excited to get a Jonathan Isaac, Malik Monk or whatever player was available at that pick. Also, I think the pro tank group would be cut in half if it simply was only about this year or next year.
But its not....it is almost zero sum @ this point....get a top 3 pick this year and a likely mid round pick in 2019 vs. only getting a late lottery or mid round pick in 2018. |
Yea if we were keeping our pick I wouldn't be cheering for the tank. There's also the 2019 pick. With the new CBA...we NEED these assets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robster8989
Star Player
Joined: 30 Dec 2014
Posts: 1025
Location: San Diego
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | RJBaca wrote: | I don't remember tank threads when I started following lg. I started here during the Shaq and Kobe era so of course no reason for a tank threAd, but we picked up Bynum with the number 10 pick and I don't recall the posters here cheering for a tank that year.
Rooting for your team to lose for whatever reason I find demoralizing but putting stats to it and getting excited about it? Very strange to me. I guess the future fan will root for wins until it starts looking bleak, then root for losses. I guess that's the new trend.
I will always come here it's a great site with some great information. I just don't get the tank . |
It is the fantasy sports influence, two birds in the bush are now better than one in the hand. Until those in the bush are actually here, then the new ones in the bush are better. It is easier to dream about the future than to actually live it. |
I have no problem with all those that feel we should not tank, but something that is a little bothersome is the "honor stance" that is becoming popular on LG...or just taking shots at anyone that supports tanking without presenting an optimal option and how they feel there is tangible benefit in their plan. None of this...make a trade for a star or some other imaginary outcome.
Also the hedging....or the "let's define tank". Tanking is what it always has been....trading away mature assets that the FO does not consider part of the future for future assets, playing questionable future core players to reach a decision, and playing youth to expedite their development. The combination of these things usually results in losses...and is classic tanking. Let's cease pretending tanking has ever been about players trying to lose or the coach purposely putting them in poor position solely for the purpose of losing. So if you support "classic tanking", stop with the I don't support tanking, but.....
None of us are qualified to run an NBA organization, so it would be silly for me to feel like I have the answers and dismiss others, but I cant help but feel much of the anti-tanking is derived from the inability to recognize the environment has changed, and the old ways are less likely to be successful today. We had bad timing as most teams in the league were transitioning to the new environment, our superstar was winding down one of the greatest NBA careers. So here we are, and we have to react with the hand that we have been dealt. So if you are truly against tanking.....if we do, and successfully keep our pick...please be sure to remind everyone on draft night that if it was up to you, we would have never drafted Fultz, Ball, Tatum or whoever we select....but if the ping pong balls dont go our way, dont do the I told you so, unless you have put out a tangible alternative road to success. |
Brilliantly said.
I 100% agree.
Support tanking or not, just don't belittle others opinions.
For me, it's all about assets, and a top 3 pick, plus the 2019 first rounder which also stays if we keep the top 3 this year, are valuable assets that a building team needs, especially in light of the CBA changes which make it even harder to acquire top end talent via FA.
_________________
"Rangers lead the way!"
West Point '88
UCLA '92
75th Ranger Regiment '88-'04 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obviously this thread is simply about why I think the FO may be hesitant to make moves to aid the tank. If the distance between 8th and 14th were wider I gather the FO and even anti tankers would submit to it.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
babyskyhook
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 18492
Location: The Garden Island
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | Quote: | Note: The same people screaming TANK every year are usually the same people that are impatient as [expletive] with the progression of our young talent, so much so that they look for quick fixes. So it's a bit of an oxymoron to not be able to deal with the process of a player growing and coming into their own fast enough so the solution is to try to get an even younger player who will take even more time to progress.
|
This is 100% true.
Each year folks want a 19 year old. We draft said 19 year old and the impatience begins...and the cycle repeats. |
What % of the tank brigade would you say this applies to ?
I feel like a lot of the tank crew members like myself want to land potential stars in the lotto and then want to see them develop into stars as Lakers. By definition, that's a long-term approach, but I think it's by far the best approach, especially given the new CBA.
The impatient people are the ones constantly looking for the team to deal for guys like Boogie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
babyskyhook
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 18492
Location: The Garden Island
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | RJBaca wrote: | I don't remember tank threads when I started following lg. I started here during the Shaq and Kobe era so of course no reason for a tank threAd, but we picked up Bynum with the number 10 pick and I don't recall the posters here cheering for a tank that year.
Rooting for your team to lose for whatever reason I find demoralizing but putting stats to it and getting excited about it? Very strange to me. I guess the future fan will root for wins until it starts looking bleak, then root for losses. I guess that's the new trend.
I will always come here it's a great site with some great information. I just don't get the tank . |
It is the fantasy sports influence, two birds in the bush are now better than one in the hand. Until those in the bush are actually here, then the new ones in the bush are better. It is easier to dream about the future than to actually live it. |
I have no problem with all those that feel we should not tank, but something that is a little bothersome is the "honor stance" that is becoming popular on LG...or just taking shots at anyone that supports tanking without presenting an optimal option and how they feel there is tangible benefit in their plan. None of this...make a trade for a star or some other imaginary outcome.
Also the hedging....or the "let's define tank". Tanking is what it always has been....trading away mature assets that the FO does not consider part of the future for future assets, playing questionable future core players to reach a decision, and playing youth to expedite their development. The combination of these things usually results in losses...and is classic tanking. Let's cease pretending tanking has ever been about players trying to lose or the coach purposely putting them in poor position solely for the purpose of losing. So if you support "classic tanking", stop with the I don't support tanking, but.....
None of us are qualified to run an NBA organization, so it would be silly for me to feel like I have the answers and dismiss others, but I cant help but feel much of the anti-tanking is derived from the inability to recognize the environment has changed, and the old ways are less likely to be successful today. We had bad timing as most teams in the league were transitioning to the new environment, our superstar was winding down one of the greatest NBA careers. So here we are, and we have to react with the hand that we have been dealt. So if you are truly against tanking.....if we do, and successfully keep our pick...please be sure to remind everyone on draft night that if it was up to you, we would have never drafted Fultz, Ball, Tatum or whoever we select....but if the ping pong balls dont go our way, dont do the I told you so, unless you have put out a tangible alternative road to success. |
Well said.
Co-sign.
There has been an anti-tanking, moral high horse that some posters here have been trying to ride for a few years. It was really bad the first year. It's gotten better and better over the last few years, as it's mostly more of a live and let live vibe now. But you still occasionally get the "tanking is for losers" nonsense trotted out. Like you said, those people don't' need to enjoy watching Ingram or Russel play if they were so horrified by the tanking/incompetence that brought those players to LA.
And Philly sure doesn't look like a bunch of losers right now. Embiid, Saric, Noel and Simmons gearing up to play.
Along with keeping the two picks, part of what's driving this is the fact that JR isn't Giannis and DLo isn't Porzingis. Ingram looks like a star to me, but neither DLo nor JR has the "can't miss" look that Embiid, the Zinger, Towns, etc have.
DLo and JR could still turn out to be great, but neither has blown most people away. They both have potential, but neither seems transformative in the way that Embiid is.
As long as the Lakers are in the lotto, there will be tanking threads, but they'll be a lot shorter if it seems like the Lakers already have a couple of potential franchise players on the roster and we're talking about the difference between 10th worst record and 8th worst record and no danger of losing the pick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn
Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SGVL1 wrote: | | Lakers would have to do a lot better than a little 10-10 repeat of the early season to have a shot. If the FO thinks they can still make the playoffs and leapfrog that many teams, then they're just as clueless as people on here say they are |
Lets again remember how we were winning games to begin with. We had all of our players healthy.
Without health, no matter who we bring in, we will continue to lose games.
So a healthy lakers roster that is used to playing together since guys are no longer coming in and going out on the IR every 2 weeks. It is possible to play .500 ball or slightly above .500 ball. Their are quite a few nba teams that are not that great that we could feast on if we stayed healthy for a very long stretch. Now the question is, WILL WE STAY HEALTHY FOR THAT LONG OF A STRETCH? probably not. therefore, we probably will not be making the playoffs. So the next question should be how healthy will we be going forward? If we're relatively healthy, we can hover around .500 or slightly less. Not bad for a young team showing promise. and sure we would lose the pick. but at some point we will have to give up that pick, this year, next year or the year after. so we either get that monkey off our backs now and get it over with or push that baby down the line. |
|
| 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
|
|
