| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Would you trade for Paul George this summer? |
| Yes. He's worth it. |
|
26% |
[ 47 ] |
| No. We're giving up too much and/or we should wait for him as a FA in 2018. |
|
73% |
[ 132 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 179 |
|
| Author |
Message |
USCandLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 19955
|
 Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nash wrote: | | pjiddy wrote: | | tox wrote: | Suppose we met with Hayward, and he said he'd agree to come to LA provided we trade for Paul George as well.
Under those circumstances, what would you trade in a deal for PG? |
In addition the picks, i'd be open to the idea of trading Randle if it's bringing back Hayward and George.
But now where do you play them? We now have three guys (PG, Hayward, Ingram) who are out of position at anywhere other than the 3. You basically have to trade Ingram at that point (instead of the pick).
Otherwise, signing Hayward and trading for PG feels a little wasteful no? |
There is no way Ingram is ready to start if you build a team planning to win games. By the time Ingram is ready you have PG13 entering the wrong side of the 30's and you have continuity. |
My thoughts exactly.
_________________
A banana is killed every time a terrible thread or post is made.  Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nash
Star Player
Joined: 23 Oct 2001
Posts: 8194
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VicXLakers wrote: |
BI will start next year... |
If we stand pat with the current roster tanking again the better thing we can do is to give all the time available to the development of our young guns. It is not happening with both PG13 and Hayward here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjiddy
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 29057
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nash wrote: | | pjiddy wrote: | | tox wrote: | Suppose we met with Hayward, and he said he'd agree to come to LA provided we trade for Paul George as well.
Under those circumstances, what would you trade in a deal for PG? |
In addition the picks, i'd be open to the idea of trading Randle if it's bringing back Hayward and George.
But now where do you play them? We now have three guys (PG, Hayward, Ingram) who are out of position at anywhere other than the 3. You basically have to trade Ingram at that point (instead of the pick).
Otherwise, signing Hayward and trading for PG feels a little wasteful no? |
There is no way Ingram is ready to start if you build a team planning to win games. By the time Ingram is ready you have PG13 entering the wrong side of the 30's and you have continuity. |
If you're not going to play Ingram, you trade him. Either you're trying to speed his development as much as possible so he can contribute to a team with Paul George on it, or you move him. This isn't football. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
USCandLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 19955
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VicXLakers wrote: | | nash wrote: | | pjiddy wrote: | | tox wrote: | Suppose we met with Hayward, and he said he'd agree to come to LA provided we trade for Paul George as well.
Under those circumstances, what would you trade in a deal for PG? |
In addition the picks, i'd be open to the idea of trading Randle if it's bringing back Hayward and George.
But now where do you play them? We now have three guys (PG, Hayward, Ingram) who are out of position at anywhere other than the 3. You basically have to trade Ingram at that point (instead of the pick).
Otherwise, signing Hayward and trading for PG feels a little wasteful no? |
There is no way Ingram is ready to start if you build a team planning to win games. By the time Ingram is ready you have PG13 entering the wrong side of the 30's and you have continuity. |
BI will start next year... |
If you have Hayward and PG, Ingram's(rightfully) not starting.
He doesn't need to start to develop either. Between SG, SF and PF, he'd find minutes.
_________________
A banana is killed every time a terrible thread or post is made. Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
USCandLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 19955
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjiddy wrote: | | nash wrote: | | pjiddy wrote: | | tox wrote: | Suppose we met with Hayward, and he said he'd agree to come to LA provided we trade for Paul George as well.
Under those circumstances, what would you trade in a deal for PG? |
In addition the picks, i'd be open to the idea of trading Randle if it's bringing back Hayward and George.
But now where do you play them? We now have three guys (PG, Hayward, Ingram) who are out of position at anywhere other than the 3. You basically have to trade Ingram at that point (instead of the pick).
Otherwise, signing Hayward and trading for PG feels a little wasteful no? |
There is no way Ingram is ready to start if you build a team planning to win games. By the time Ingram is ready you have PG13 entering the wrong side of the 30's and you have continuity. |
If you're not going to play Ingram, you trade him. Either you're trying to speed his development as much as possible so he can contribute to a team with Paul George on it, or you move him. This isn't football. |
Play =/= start. There's plenty of minutes to be had for a guy that can play 2, maybe 3 positions. He doesn't need to start. That's depth and development. You kill two birds with one stone.
_________________
A banana is killed every time a terrible thread or post is made. Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjiddy
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 29057
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| USCandLakers wrote: | | VicXLakers wrote: | | nash wrote: | | pjiddy wrote: | | tox wrote: | Suppose we met with Hayward, and he said he'd agree to come to LA provided we trade for Paul George as well.
Under those circumstances, what would you trade in a deal for PG? |
In addition the picks, i'd be open to the idea of trading Randle if it's bringing back Hayward and George.
But now where do you play them? We now have three guys (PG, Hayward, Ingram) who are out of position at anywhere other than the 3. You basically have to trade Ingram at that point (instead of the pick).
Otherwise, signing Hayward and trading for PG feels a little wasteful no? |
There is no way Ingram is ready to start if you build a team planning to win games. By the time Ingram is ready you have PG13 entering the wrong side of the 30's and you have continuity. |
BI will start next year... |
If you have Hayward and PG, Ingram's(rightfully) not starting.
He doesn't need to start to develop either. Between SG, SF and PF, he'd find minutes. |
He's too frail to play PF. That is years away. Not quick enough to play SG. He's firmly a 3 for now. With Hayward and George on the roster, there'd be 15 minutes a game at best for him. That is hugely wasteful. Ingram isn't ready to start in his 2nd year on a team trying to win, but Ball is ready to be the starting point guard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VicXLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 11823
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BI will start for the Lakers next year... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjiddy
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 29057
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| USCandLakers wrote: | | pjiddy wrote: | | nash wrote: | | pjiddy wrote: | | tox wrote: | Suppose we met with Hayward, and he said he'd agree to come to LA provided we trade for Paul George as well.
Under those circumstances, what would you trade in a deal for PG? |
In addition the picks, i'd be open to the idea of trading Randle if it's bringing back Hayward and George.
But now where do you play them? We now have three guys (PG, Hayward, Ingram) who are out of position at anywhere other than the 3. You basically have to trade Ingram at that point (instead of the pick).
Otherwise, signing Hayward and trading for PG feels a little wasteful no? |
There is no way Ingram is ready to start if you build a team planning to win games. By the time Ingram is ready you have PG13 entering the wrong side of the 30's and you have continuity. |
If you're not going to play Ingram, you trade him. Either you're trying to speed his development as much as possible so he can contribute to a team with Paul George on it, or you move him. This isn't football. |
Play =/= start. There's plenty of minutes to be had for a guy that can play 2, maybe 3 positions. He doesn't need to start. That's depth and development. You kill two birds with one stone. |
He doesn't play 3 positions. He plays one. I don't understand why you trade the guy that can actually start alongside your big acquisitions (DLO), a guy in a position we'll be extremely thin at (especially if you also trade Clarkson), but want to keep the guy that can play off the bench and "take over" 3-4 years from now when Hayward and George are on the wrong side of 30. What kind of plan is that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
USCandLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 19955
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjiddy wrote: | | USCandLakers wrote: | | VicXLakers wrote: | | nash wrote: | | pjiddy wrote: | | tox wrote: | Suppose we met with Hayward, and he said he'd agree to come to LA provided we trade for Paul George as well.
Under those circumstances, what would you trade in a deal for PG? |
In addition the picks, i'd be open to the idea of trading Randle if it's bringing back Hayward and George.
But now where do you play them? We now have three guys (PG, Hayward, Ingram) who are out of position at anywhere other than the 3. You basically have to trade Ingram at that point (instead of the pick).
Otherwise, signing Hayward and trading for PG feels a little wasteful no? |
There is no way Ingram is ready to start if you build a team planning to win games. By the time Ingram is ready you have PG13 entering the wrong side of the 30's and you have continuity. |
BI will start next year... |
If you have Hayward and PG, Ingram's(rightfully) not starting.
He doesn't need to start to develop either. Between SG, SF and PF, he'd find minutes. |
He's too frail to play PF. That is years away. Not quick enough to play SG. He's firmly a 3 for now. With Hayward and George on the roster, there'd be 15 minutes a game at best for him. That is hugely wasteful. Ingram isn't ready to start in his 2nd year on a team trying to win, but Ball is ready to be the starting point guard. |
There would be 26-32 minutes available for Ingram off the bench, more when his body is ready to play PF for more than spurts.
I don't know where you're coming from with that last statement. Ingram wouldn't start because there'd be all-stars starting in his positions.
_________________
A banana is killed every time a terrible thread or post is made. Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjiddy wrote: | | nash wrote: | | pjiddy wrote: | | tox wrote: | Suppose we met with Hayward, and he said he'd agree to come to LA provided we trade for Paul George as well.
Under those circumstances, what would you trade in a deal for PG? |
In addition the picks, i'd be open to the idea of trading Randle if it's bringing back Hayward and George.
But now where do you play them? We now have three guys (PG, Hayward, Ingram) who are out of position at anywhere other than the 3. You basically have to trade Ingram at that point (instead of the pick).
Otherwise, signing Hayward and trading for PG feels a little wasteful no? |
There is no way Ingram is ready to start if you build a team planning to win games. By the time Ingram is ready you have PG13 entering the wrong side of the 30's and you have continuity. |
If you're not going to play Ingram, you trade him. Either you're trying to speed his development as much as possible so he can contribute to a team with Paul George on it, or you move him. This isn't football. |
Backups can develop too
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
USCandLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 19955
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjiddy wrote: | | USCandLakers wrote: | | pjiddy wrote: | | nash wrote: | | pjiddy wrote: | | tox wrote: | Suppose we met with Hayward, and he said he'd agree to come to LA provided we trade for Paul George as well.
Under those circumstances, what would you trade in a deal for PG? |
In addition the picks, i'd be open to the idea of trading Randle if it's bringing back Hayward and George.
But now where do you play them? We now have three guys (PG, Hayward, Ingram) who are out of position at anywhere other than the 3. You basically have to trade Ingram at that point (instead of the pick).
Otherwise, signing Hayward and trading for PG feels a little wasteful no? |
There is no way Ingram is ready to start if you build a team planning to win games. By the time Ingram is ready you have PG13 entering the wrong side of the 30's and you have continuity. |
If you're not going to play Ingram, you trade him. Either you're trying to speed his development as much as possible so he can contribute to a team with Paul George on it, or you move him. This isn't football. |
Play =/= start. There's plenty of minutes to be had for a guy that can play 2, maybe 3 positions. He doesn't need to start. That's depth and development. You kill two birds with one stone. |
He doesn't play 3 positions. He plays one. I don't understand why you trade the guy that can actually start alongside your big acquisitions (DLO), a guy in a position we'll be extremely thin at (especially if you also trade Clarkson), but want to keep the guy that can play off the bench and "take over" 3-4 years from now when Hayward and George are on the wrong side of 30. What kind of plan is that? |
Did you really just turn this into DLO vs Ingram?
_________________
A banana is killed every time a terrible thread or post is made. Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nash
Star Player
Joined: 23 Oct 2001
Posts: 8194
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjiddy wrote: |
If you're not going to play Ingram, you trade him. Either you're trying to speed his development as much as possible so he can contribute to a team with Paul George on it, or you move him. This isn't football. |
Kobe didn't start high away and it ended up pretty well for us 
By the way in a few seasons when I believe Ingram is going to be ready to start he may be better suited to be a stretch four.
In three seasons:
Fultz
Hayward
Paul George
Ingram
Zubac
If you think Dlo is our PG of the future and a better prospect than Fultz
Dlo
Hayward
Paul George
Ingram
Zubac |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Runway8
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 22841
Location: La Jolla, San Diego
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As long as BI, Russell, Zubac, Nance and top 3 are not part of the trade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjiddy
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 29057
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | pjiddy wrote: | | nash wrote: | | pjiddy wrote: | | tox wrote: | Suppose we met with Hayward, and he said he'd agree to come to LA provided we trade for Paul George as well.
Under those circumstances, what would you trade in a deal for PG? |
In addition the picks, i'd be open to the idea of trading Randle if it's bringing back Hayward and George.
But now where do you play them? We now have three guys (PG, Hayward, Ingram) who are out of position at anywhere other than the 3. You basically have to trade Ingram at that point (instead of the pick).
Otherwise, signing Hayward and trading for PG feels a little wasteful no? |
There is no way Ingram is ready to start if you build a team planning to win games. By the time Ingram is ready you have PG13 entering the wrong side of the 30's and you have continuity. |
If you're not going to play Ingram, you trade him. Either you're trying to speed his development as much as possible so he can contribute to a team with Paul George on it, or you move him. This isn't football. |
Backups can develop too |
And then go to another team when it's time to pay them. See: McGrady, Jermaine. Another team profits from our "development time" that could've gone to a guy that would actually play with our free agents, and at a position of dying need. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjiddy
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 29057
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| USCandLakers wrote: | | pjiddy wrote: | | USCandLakers wrote: | | pjiddy wrote: | | nash wrote: | | pjiddy wrote: | | tox wrote: | Suppose we met with Hayward, and he said he'd agree to come to LA provided we trade for Paul George as well.
Under those circumstances, what would you trade in a deal for PG? |
In addition the picks, i'd be open to the idea of trading Randle if it's bringing back Hayward and George.
But now where do you play them? We now have three guys (PG, Hayward, Ingram) who are out of position at anywhere other than the 3. You basically have to trade Ingram at that point (instead of the pick).
Otherwise, signing Hayward and trading for PG feels a little wasteful no? |
There is no way Ingram is ready to start if you build a team planning to win games. By the time Ingram is ready you have PG13 entering the wrong side of the 30's and you have continuity. |
If you're not going to play Ingram, you trade him. Either you're trying to speed his development as much as possible so he can contribute to a team with Paul George on it, or you move him. This isn't football. |
Play =/= start. There's plenty of minutes to be had for a guy that can play 2, maybe 3 positions. He doesn't need to start. That's depth and development. You kill two birds with one stone. |
He doesn't play 3 positions. He plays one. I don't understand why you trade the guy that can actually start alongside your big acquisitions (DLO), a guy in a position we'll be extremely thin at (especially if you also trade Clarkson), but want to keep the guy that can play off the bench and "take over" 3-4 years from now when Hayward and George are on the wrong side of 30. What kind of plan is that? |
Did you really just turn this into DLO vs Ingram? |
If I had a big picture allergy and needed to reduce everything to a simple binary or strained analogy, I would've done that. But looking at the totality, this scenario means Ball, Ennis, and Nwaba represent the entirety of our guard rotation, so we can have the luxury of Ingram being "ready" after Hayward and George exit their prime. Yeah, let's set ourselves up to be a semis team for years and years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vottomatic
Starting Rotation
Joined: 20 Feb 2015
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2017 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I we get the #1 pick don't trade for George and build around Fultz and Ingram ....but if get a top 3 pick not being 1st overall trade it for George ...and hope Igram Geroge and Dlo develope nice chemistry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VicXLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 11823
|
| Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tonight on Jimmy Kimmel Live
Episode: Ed Helms; Paul George; Vladimir Caamaño
fwiw... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShowtimeDynasty_24/7
Star Player
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 8361
|
| Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gotta think how the Pacers rank our assets. I'll assume we get the 2nd or 3rd pick (I know, big assumption we get that pick).
Lets use a rudimentary scale. One that judges the player's overall ability. Another that judges player potential (incorporates player's improvement and ability to fit into team concept and direction), and one that grades players contract.
Overall Ability
1st tier - High level starter
2nd tier - Solid Starter
3rd tier - Rotational/Fringe Starter
Potential
1st tier - High upside
2nd tier- Average upside
3rd tier- No upside
Contract
1st tier- Team Friendly
2nd tier- Adequate
3rd tier- Horrible
1) Brandon Ingram
2) 2nd/3rd pick
3) D'Angelo Russell
4) Julius Randle
5) Jordan Clarkson
6) Ivica Zubak
7) 28th pick
8) Corey Brewer
9) Timofey Mozgov
10) Luol Deng
How they rank theirs:
1) Paul George
2) Myles Turner
3) 16th pick
4) Glen Robinson III
5) Thaddeus Young
6) Lance Stepheson
Combine those lists:
1) Paul George 1/2/1
2) Myles Turner 2/1/1
3) Brandon Ingram 3/1/1
4) 2nd/3rd Pick 3/1/1
5) D'Angelo Russell 2/1/1
6) Julius Randle 3/2/1
7) 16th pick 3/2/1
8) Jordan Clarkson 3/3/1
9) Ivica Zubak 3/1/1
10) Glen Robinson III 3/2/1
Pacers lack assets and youth. So whatever deal they get will have to bring lots of it.
I think their asking price for George will be at least Ingram, Randle, and the 28th pick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Pacers new GM has said he is interested in draft picks. We can't help much there.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakerican
Star Player
Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 3786
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2017 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | The Pacers new GM has said he is interested in draft picks. We can't help much there. |
Really??, Last time I check, we can have a top 3 & the 28 pick(Why do you think we trade Sweet Lou??!!). If we draw the top 3 tonite, @ DraftNight PG will be in Purple & Gold  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Four Decade Bandwagon
Star Player
Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Posts: 8149
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2017 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lakerican wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | The Pacers new GM has said he is interested in draft picks. We can't help much there. |
Really??, Last time I check, we can have a top 3 & the 28 pick(Why do you think we trade Sweet Lou??!!). If we draw the top 3 tonite, @ DraftNight PG will be in Purple & Gold |
Tend to agree with this speculation. The higher the pick the higher the odds George become a Laker IMO.
Biggest uncertainty is the final deal. How many other assets are needed to complete the deal? Multiple players? Which ones? Future picks? Multiple teams to add more draft picks?
In some ways the next couple months of trade possibilities is more nerve wracking then waiting for the lottery tonight. Lottery is straight forward. Lakers either land it or not. Either way they have two picks. Trades could be all over the place depending on the path taken by management. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gatekeeper
Star Player
Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 5103
Location: Southland Native
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2017 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lakerican wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | The Pacers new GM has said he is interested in draft picks. We can't help much there. |
Really??, Last time I check, we can have a top 3 & the 28 pick(Why do you think we trade Sweet Lou??!!). If we draw the top 3 tonite, @ DraftNight PG will be in Purple & Gold |
Other teams can offer more.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Krispy Kreme
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
Posts: 12252
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2017 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lakerican wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | The Pacers new GM has said he is interested in draft picks. We can't help much there. |
Really??, Last time I check, we can have a top 3 & the 28 pick(Why do you think we trade Sweet Lou??!!). If we draw the top 3 tonite, @ DraftNight PG will be in Purple & Gold |
And then what? I can see you predicting that PG will lead us to the WCF next year. Temper your expectations. He's a good player. Not a tier 1 superstar like Durant, Lebron, Westbrook, Leonard, etc.
_________________
Dominating every day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kobe_luver
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 11644
Location: LA
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2017 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poll has dropped from 80% NO to 74% NO for a while. Can the title be updated to 74%?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
