Assuming the 2 max plan comes to fruition and you could only keep one, which do you keep?
JC (combo guard off the bench)
26%
[ 33 ]
Jules (combo PF/C)
73%
[ 91 ]
Total Votes : 124
Author
Message
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:32 am Post subject: Jules or JC?
Assuming the two max plan happens (2 of lbj/pg/boogie), and the cap math works where you can keep one, who would you prefer? _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
If it's for the same cash, I'll take Randle. The NBA is filled with scoring ball hogs at the guard position. Not so many good post defenders out there. _________________ www.lakersbrasil.com
Fan site made by me and others, dedicated to posting Laker news and articles in portuguese.
For this season (at least until trade deadline), we need both to win games.
Post trade deadline and next season, I would say Randle. His skillset and size is harder to replace. Nothing against JC, just that there are quite a few JC types around the league.
I think in 2019 we would remedy this with a full MLE and a 1st rounder we could trade. But yeah we are thin. It’s a genuine conundrum. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
I think in 2019 we would remedy this with a full MLE and a 1st rounder we could trade. But yeah we are thin. It’s a genuine conundrum.
Right now we're thin, but since OP's premise is we get the 2 max players, there'll be a parade of journeyman scoring combo guards to sign for the min. That's just the way the NBA is built and they'll face a slower market next year.
Randle's game is harder to replace though, for teams pay this kind of player more than the vet min. _________________ www.lakersbrasil.com
Fan site made by me and others, dedicated to posting Laker news and articles in portuguese.
I'd like to keep both. But Randle has more upside and you see how good TT played along side Lebron pre Kardashian. Randle would get paid $100m next to Lebron. Although Clarkson would be a sniper from three if Lebron collapses the defense and kicks out to him.
Depends entirely on how the two max options are, but if it's only limited to 2 of the three, then there is no choice.
You drop Randle as he is more redundant at his position. Doesn't matter if you think he is better than JC since he will not see the court and we will have no one at the guard spots then.
If we signed two of Klay/Avery/Kemba, same thing. You move JC, not Randle.
Not about who you like, it's about skill redundancy and position availability.
Depends entirely on how the two max options are, but if it's only limited to 2 of the three, then there is no choice.
You drop Randle as he is more redundant at his position. Doesn't matter if you think he is better than JC since he will not see the court and we will have no one at the guard spots then.
If we signed two of Klay/Avery/Kemba, same thing. You move JC, not Randle.
Not about who you like, it's about skill redundancy and position availability.
I agree completely with the above. Once JR was relegated to the bench, then the choice became simple.
Backup PF (Nance - quality player)
Backup C (Zubac and Bryant - quality and potential)
vs.
Backup SG (Hart - unproven and can't shoot)
Backup PG (Ennis or Caruso - non-NBA players)
Depends entirely on how the two max options are, but if it's only limited to 2 of the three, then there is no choice.
You drop Randle as he is more redundant at his position. Doesn't matter if you think he is better than JC since he will not see the court and we will have no one at the guard spots then.
If we signed two of Klay/Avery/Kemba, same thing. You move JC, not Randle.
Not about who you like, it's about skill redundancy and position availability.
I agree completely with the above. Once JR was relegated to the bench, then the choice became simple.
Backup PF (Nance - quality player)
Backup C (Zubac and Bryant - quality and potential)
vs.
Backup SG (Hart - unproven and can't shoot)
Backup PG (Ennis or Caruso - non-NBA players)
It seems easier just to keep JC and let JR go.
That's why I'll still trade JC to use his salary to sign two players that fills both holes. Also I agree with losing Randle and Deng too.
Last edited by fontana3d on Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35750 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:50 pm Post subject:
I’m guessing Clarkson’s current contract is more reasonable than whatever Randle is going to demand, so I’d keep Clarkson. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Depends entirely on how the two max options are, but if it's only limited to 2 of the three, then there is no choice.
You drop Randle as he is more redundant at his position. Doesn't matter if you think he is better than JC since he will not see the court and we will have no one at the guard spots then.
If we signed two of Klay/Avery/Kemba, same thing. You move JC, not Randle.
Not about who you like, it's about skill redundancy and position availability.
I agree completely with the above. Once JR was relegated to the bench, then the choice became simple.
Backup PF (Nance - quality player)
Backup C (Zubac and Bryant - quality and potential)
vs.
Backup SG (Hart - unproven and can't shoot)
Backup PG (Ennis or Caruso - non-NBA players)
It seems easier just to keep JC and let JR go.
That's why I'll still trade JC to use his salary to sign two players that fills both holes. Also I agree with losing Randle and Deng too.
I don't see the need to. Here are the rotations with my options:
C - Cousins, Nance, Zubac, Thomas
PF - Kuzma, Nance
SF - BI, PG, Kuzma
SG - PG, JC, Hart
PG - Zo, JC, Ennis
Bolded gets into the regular rotation. There is no need to sign anyone else.
There will be no more minutes to go around. Why would a quality backup SG or PG or PF come here to play 10 minutes a game?
I think you still go with Randle's upside. He's still pretty young (turns 23 in about a week), has continued to improve over the course of his first three seasons and is starting to show life in his 3pt shot. He also has an elite NBA skill (rebounding). By the time he's 26 he could grow into a top 3 player on a contender. Jordan is closer to his peak IMO and the thing he's best at (scoring) comes at an opportunity cost to the rest of the team. If you do add one or two stars Jordan gets less FGAs.
All that said it's starting to look like a good problem to have. Adding one star and keeping both is, if they continue to have strong seasons, by no means a poor option. _________________ Austin Reaves keeps his game tight, like Kobe Bryant on game night.
I think Clarkson's skill set is more easily replaceable. JR is younger and still has more room for growth. _________________ LeBron, AD, & _________. Stay tuned.
"...there was a time when the Israelites were wandering in the desert and all of a sudden, bread came down from heaven,” Pelinka said. “That’s kind of what today feels like for us to have KCP join.”
Depends entirely on how the two max options are, but if it's only limited to 2 of the three, then there is no choice.
You drop Randle as he is more redundant at his position. Doesn't matter if you think he is better than JC since he will not see the court and we will have no one at the guard spots then.
If we signed two of Klay/Avery/Kemba, same thing. You move JC, not Randle.
Not about who you like, it's about skill redundancy and position availability.
I agree completely with the above. Once JR was relegated to the bench, then the choice became simple.
Backup PF (Nance - quality player)
Backup C (Zubac and Bryant - quality and potential)
vs.
Backup SG (Hart - unproven and can't shoot)
Backup PG (Ennis or Caruso - non-NBA players)
It seems easier just to keep JC and let JR go.
That's why I'll still trade JC to use his salary to sign two players that fills both holes. Also I agree with losing Randle and Deng too.
I don't see the need to. Here are the rotations with my options:
C - Cousins, Nance, Zubac, Thomas
PF - Kuzma, Nance
SF - BI, PG, Kuzma
SG - PG, JC, Hart
PG - Zo, JC, Ennis
Bolded gets into the regular rotation. There is no need to sign anyone else.
There will be no more minutes to go around. Why would a quality backup SG or PG or PF come here to play 10 minutes a game?
Well we have to fill out the rest of the roster and might as well sell high.on Clarkson and get some pieces for him.
I think in 2019 we would remedy this with a full MLE and a 1st rounder we could trade. But yeah we are thin. It’s a genuine conundrum.
Right now we're thin, but since OP's premise is we get the 2 max players, there'll be a parade of journeyman scoring combo guards to sign for the min. That's just the way the NBA is built and they'll face a slower market next year.
Randle's game is harder to replace though, for teams pay this kind of player more than the vet min.
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:20 pm Post subject:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
AirKobe8 wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
The team is sooo thin on guards...
I think in 2019 we would remedy this with a full MLE and a 1st rounder we could trade. But yeah we are thin. It’s a genuine conundrum.
Right now we're thin, but since OP's premise is we get the 2 max players, there'll be a parade of journeyman scoring combo guards to sign for the min. That's just the way the NBA is built and they'll face a slower market next year.
Randle's game is harder to replace though, for teams pay this kind of player more than the vet min.
Can you name a few?
Yeah, I'd love to know. Even if they were able to sign one that still wouldn't cover the loss of KCP.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Next
Page 1 of 6
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