Was Mitchell or Porzingod the bigger miss from our FO?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21729

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 4:55 pm    Post subject:

70sdude wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Wilkes52 wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
The guy went 13th. He was never realistically in play. It's just not worth thinking about. Porzingis, in theory, could've been in play, since we apparently didn't want to take Okafor (the correct decision), so Porzingis may have been our second choice.


The misnomer "was not in play" is misleading, a cloaking device for what's more accurate, that talent evaluators did their jobs poorly.


Did they?

Pretty sure it was well known how KP killed his workout with the Lakers.

But if the FO drafts Mitchell and they miss on the #2 pick, people are getting fired.

It's not fair to assume Mitchell develops into this exact guy as a Laker player vs Utah player either.


I'll jump in. Are you saying there's no second-guessing draft results permitted ? That's the direction you're headed, that life is not fair and so there's no going back to replay what might have been in some alternate world, so we must assume that whoever plucked Mitchell was just lucky, not more gifted as a talent scout. I don't buy it. If Jerry West was just lucky to have been proven sharp having obtained the pick for Kobe Bryant, I might feel otherwise, but that was not just good fortune IMO.


I don't think he, nor I, are saying that there's no second-guessing of draft results. The problem, to me, is that it seems like you are only open to the idea that a draft selection can only occur out of skill or luck. That's the position I'm arguing against.

That is, that it is possible to make the right choice, based on ALL of the information available at the time, and have it end up not be the right choice at a later date, but as a result of things that were reasonably out of your control at the time of the selection.

I think it is important, when second-guessing a missed draft prospect, to FIRST look at the situation and use common sense judgment to decide whether this particular miss could have reasonably been foreseen.

I'll use an example. Rudy Gobert was drafted 27th in the 2013 draft. In a re-draft, he is going top 3 probably, top 5 at worst. So was there sufficient information available, at the time of the 2013 draft, to conclude that one should take Gobert at #2 or #3?

If the answer is no, then, you chalk it up to some luck. If the answer is yes, then, and only then, can we discuss the details around what piece of information was overlooked or wrongly interpreted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
44TheLogo
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 6141

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 5:03 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
70sdude wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Wilkes52 wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
The guy went 13th. He was never realistically in play. It's just not worth thinking about. Porzingis, in theory, could've been in play, since we apparently didn't want to take Okafor (the correct decision), so Porzingis may have been our second choice.


The misnomer "was not in play" is misleading, a cloaking device for what's more accurate, that talent evaluators did their jobs poorly.


Did they?

Pretty sure it was well known how KP killed his workout with the Lakers.

But if the FO drafts Mitchell and they miss on the #2 pick, people are getting fired.

It's not fair to assume Mitchell develops into this exact guy as a Laker player vs Utah player either.


I'll jump in. Are you saying there's no second-guessing draft results permitted ? That's the direction you're headed, that life is not fair and so there's no going back to replay what might have been in some alternate world, so we must assume that whoever plucked Mitchell was just lucky, not more gifted as a talent scout. I don't buy it. If Jerry West was just lucky to have been proven sharp having obtained the pick for Kobe Bryant, I might feel otherwise, but that was not just good fortune IMO.


I don't think he, nor I, are saying that there's no second-guessing of draft results. The problem, to me, is that it seems like you are only open to the idea that a draft selection can only occur out of skill or luck. That's the position I'm arguing against.

That is, that it is possible to make the right choice, based on ALL of the information available at the time, and have it end up not be the right choice at a later date, but as a result of things that were reasonably out of your control at the time of the selection.

I think it is important, when second-guessing a missed draft prospect, to FIRST look at the situation and use common sense judgment to decide whether this particular miss could have reasonably been foreseen.

I'll use an example. Rudy Gobert was drafted 27th in the 2013 draft. In a re-draft, he is going top 3 probably, top 5 at worst. So was there sufficient information available, at the time of the 2013 draft, to conclude that one should take Gobert at #2 or #3?

If the answer is no, then, you chalk it up to some luck. If the answer is yes, then, and only then, can we discuss the details around what piece of information was overlooked or wrongly interpreted.


Your premise is flawed in that you think anybody is saying that Gobert should have been #2 or #3. All I'm saying, and all I've ever been saying, is that he probably should have been, at worst, in the 10-15 range. Your standard for re-assessing the information that was overlooked or wrongly interpreted is wrong.

Perhaps Donovan shouldn't have been #1 as he would be in a re-draft, but he certainly shouldn't have been #13, and more reasonably should have been around 5-7. There's still something to be learned there.
_________________
this summer we settle of all family business
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TooMuchMajicBuss
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Posts: 17455
Location: In a white room, with black curtains near the station

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 5:42 pm    Post subject:

70sdude wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Wilkes52 wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
The guy went 13th. He was never realistically in play. It's just not worth thinking about. Porzingis, in theory, could've been in play, since we apparently didn't want to take Okafor (the correct decision), so Porzingis may have been our second choice.


The misnomer "was not in play" is misleading, a cloaking device for what's more accurate, that talent evaluators did their jobs poorly.


Did they?

Pretty sure it was well known how KP killed his workout with the Lakers.

But if the FO drafts Mitchell and they miss on the #2 pick, people are getting fired.

It's not fair to assume Mitchell develops into this exact guy as a Laker player vs Utah player either.


I'll jump in. Are you saying there's no second-guessing draft results permitted ? That's the direction you're headed, that life is not fair and so there's no going back to replay what might have been in some alternate world, so we must assume that whoever plucked Mitchell was just lucky, not more gifted as a talent scout. I don't buy it. If Jerry West was just lucky to have been proven sharp having obtained the pick for Kobe Bryant, I might feel otherwise, but that was not just good fortune IMO.


I think the Lakers have done an excellent job drafting quality players. This isn't some talent differential where Utah or the New York Knicks are outperforming us. That's where your argument falls short. Second-guessing a great performance in drafting quality players over a span of several years just because you can name a couple draft surprises spotted by other teams comes across as a bit pointless.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21729

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 5:50 pm    Post subject:

44TheLogo wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
70sdude wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Wilkes52 wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
The guy went 13th. He was never realistically in play. It's just not worth thinking about. Porzingis, in theory, could've been in play, since we apparently didn't want to take Okafor (the correct decision), so Porzingis may have been our second choice.


The misnomer "was not in play" is misleading, a cloaking device for what's more accurate, that talent evaluators did their jobs poorly.


Did they?

Pretty sure it was well known how KP killed his workout with the Lakers.

But if the FO drafts Mitchell and they miss on the #2 pick, people are getting fired.

It's not fair to assume Mitchell develops into this exact guy as a Laker player vs Utah player either.


I'll jump in. Are you saying there's no second-guessing draft results permitted ? That's the direction you're headed, that life is not fair and so there's no going back to replay what might have been in some alternate world, so we must assume that whoever plucked Mitchell was just lucky, not more gifted as a talent scout. I don't buy it. If Jerry West was just lucky to have been proven sharp having obtained the pick for Kobe Bryant, I might feel otherwise, but that was not just good fortune IMO.


I don't think he, nor I, are saying that there's no second-guessing of draft results. The problem, to me, is that it seems like you are only open to the idea that a draft selection can only occur out of skill or luck. That's the position I'm arguing against.

That is, that it is possible to make the right choice, based on ALL of the information available at the time, and have it end up not be the right choice at a later date, but as a result of things that were reasonably out of your control at the time of the selection.

I think it is important, when second-guessing a missed draft prospect, to FIRST look at the situation and use common sense judgment to decide whether this particular miss could have reasonably been foreseen.

I'll use an example. Rudy Gobert was drafted 27th in the 2013 draft. In a re-draft, he is going top 3 probably, top 5 at worst. So was there sufficient information available, at the time of the 2013 draft, to conclude that one should take Gobert at #2 or #3?

If the answer is no, then, you chalk it up to some luck. If the answer is yes, then, and only then, can we discuss the details around what piece of information was overlooked or wrongly interpreted.


Your premise is flawed in that you think anybody is saying that Gobert should have been #2 or #3. All I'm saying, and all I've ever been saying, is that he probably should have been, at worst, in the 10-15 range. Your standard for re-assessing the information that was overlooked or wrongly interpreted is wrong.

Perhaps Donovan shouldn't have been #1 as he would be in a re-draft, but he certainly shouldn't have been #13, and more reasonably should have been around 5-7. There's still something to be learned there.


And you think, in a thread that is considering Kristaps Porzingis as a miss at #4 instead of #2, that we would somehow NOT also be questioning Donovan Mitchell at #7, even if it is within your "reasonable" range?

I suppose I just don't see a huge difference between #7 and #12. Like, somehow, one is perfectly reasonable, but the other is a complete travesty?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Mike@LG
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 59741
Location: Orange County, CA

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 5:56 pm    Post subject:

70sdude wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Wilkes52 wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
The guy went 13th. He was never realistically in play. It's just not worth thinking about. Porzingis, in theory, could've been in play, since we apparently didn't want to take Okafor (the correct decision), so Porzingis may have been our second choice.


The misnomer "was not in play" is misleading, a cloaking device for what's more accurate, that talent evaluators did their jobs poorly.


Did they?

Pretty sure it was well known how KP killed his workout with the Lakers.

But if the FO drafts Mitchell and they miss on the #2 pick, people are getting fired.

It's not fair to assume Mitchell develops into this exact guy as a Laker player vs Utah player either.


I'll jump in. Are you saying there's no second-guessing draft results permitted ? That's the direction you're headed, that life is not fair and so there's no going back to replay what might have been in some alternate world, so we must assume that whoever plucked Mitchell was just lucky, not more gifted as a talent scout. I don't buy it. If Jerry West was just lucky to have been proven sharp having obtained the pick for Kobe Bryant, I might feel otherwise, but that was not just good fortune IMO.


That's absolutely not the direction I'm headed. I think people are using a lot of hindsight to evaluate players, but aren't recalling the thought processes that led to the draft evaluations in the first place.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
Troy Brown, Kevin Huerter, Chandler Hutchison, De'Anthony Melton, Jerome Robinson, Aaron Holiday, Bruce Brown, Donte Divincenzo, Josh Okogie
Jarred Vanderbilt, Landry Shamet, Alize Johnson
@Lakersoutsiders
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakersFanESS
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 06 May 2003
Posts: 758

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 6:15 pm    Post subject:

If you redraft now, I would still take Lonzo with the 2nd pick. He was the most unique player in the draft and can play with any type of player. I love Mitchell but Lonzo creates a culture of unselfishness that is hard to quantify. He is also bigger and a better defender, while scorers like Mitchell are easier to find. Not easy, but easier to find. Oladipo, Jaylen Brown, Lillard, etc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Mike@LG
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 59741
Location: Orange County, CA

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 6:15 pm    Post subject:

Quote:


i'm absolutely baffled at the line of thinking in this thread that there's no predictive science to the draft. if that were the case, how is a consensus even formed in the first place? why is there a predictive relationship between a player's draft position and NBA performance? if it were all a crapshoot of opinions there wouldn't be that relationship - there IS a science to it, but the fact that prospects get missed big time every single year without fail suggests that the science has a long way to go.


There's *some* predictive science. But it's not a standard across the board, especially in the NBA in terms of evaluating players. I mean, it wasn't even that long ago, there was a debate of Greg Oden vs. Kevin Durant. That #1 pick was definitely not unanimous.

Quote:
so what is the process by which we can improve the science of draft evaluation year over year? thoughtfulness. how do we identify the diamonds in the rough who are being overlooked? thoughtfulness. applying the lessons learned in years past to identify what traits actually lead to success in the NBA, and ignoring the traits that have led to players being overrated in the draft.


If I knew the process, I wouldn't be typing on a keyboard replying to you. But, do you really think teams use a unified process? Using thoughtfulness, which I'm assuming is applied experience and knowledge to a draft prospect as you're watching and paying attention to the "right" attributes, doesn't even mean teams are 100% unified within the scout team and/or executives within the team. That's the point I was getting at. Everyone is coming from so many different basis of knowledge for what their idea of success is.

Take for example Tony Parker. Zero analytics show that he has NBA ability. Speed dribble, fast, quick. Signs of shooting a midrange jumper, but definitely not consistent. At what point are you watching Tony Parker in France and thinking, "Yeah, that guys is going to be among the league leaders of points in the paint" or "eventually, he'll be able to shoot really well." If Tony Parker were in this season's draft, he'd likely be 2nd round to undrafted, only because guys like Okobo, Holiday, Brunson have clearly shown better skill levels, even if they're not the athlete that Tony Parker is.

Quote:
take the example of jeremy lin - clearly he should have been at least a second round pick, but because of the collective blind spot to ivy league, asian talent, he was ignored. can this be learned from by a thoughtful front office? yes. will it be learned from by all front offices? no. there are similar lessons that can be learned from missing on mitchell. period. if you don't think so then consider my mind blown.


Oh, you're definitely right about Lin, and the only time he got on the map was burning Kemba Walker. But, man there are SO MANY guys like Lin that don't make the L because they don't get the attention, they don't get the right people around them... which in turn means they don't develop their fullest upside, and don't have NBA careers. That's exactly why we see guys like Kenrich Williams who is considered a 20's pick on draft twitter, but undrafted on "media mocks" across the board. There's no consensus to that, even when Williams puts up some numbers and matches game tape. So, do you trust that he'll succeed because of what he's shown last year? Or do you trust that he won't even make the league because the dude is already 24/25 years old right now and the probability of him having an NBA career is slim to none, and slim left the building?

Quote:
Obviously, we'll never get to a point where it's clearly predictive because of many of the uncontrollable variables like quality of training staff, injuries, off the court circumstances, etc (nor do I ever hope to get there). but we should be able to get to a point where players aren't being overlooked so heavily to the point of being undrafted, ignored completely, or drafted 10-15 spots later than they should have been.


Oh, I definitely agree we SHOULD be able to get to a point where players aren't overlooked. But they are. All the time. We've got what, 230 players that declared in this draft? I'd guess that at least 30, should just automatically go to school. I'd guess of the remaining 200, that maybe 40-50 would actually have NBA careers in the right positions. But because scouts/GMs/executives look at drafts from different lenses, the actual number of successful NBA players from a draft is, if you're lucky, 20? Then we watch other guys go to Europe or the G-League and hit their upsides because they're not getting the ideal development that's perfect for them.

This is the season where there'll be so many articles where it'll say, "NBA exec says.... " The latest one is Bamba vs. Ayton. Like I can see the point at least, but that executive still refers to what what I've mentioned before. Who has the drive? This is *especially* why I've been so focused on intangibles and skill sets in contrast to athletic upside for the past 2 years.

Quote:
i am merely arguing that given what we know about what it takes to be a successful wing in the NBA today, players with broke ass shots and/or no offensive impact like deaaron fox, josh jackson, frank ntilikina, jonathan isaac should be looked at incredibly skeptically, and they better be absolutely game changing in other ways to compensate for that. the argument for josh jackson was that he was able to guard 1-4 and was an elite athlete. well all you had to do was watch him trying to keep up with jawun evans to see that that's not true. or all you had to do was watch fox's end to end speed and compare it to other elite players in the past to see that his speed was good, but not otherworldly. so do your homework in a thoughtful way, and you can eliminate costly mistakes.


Well, how do you define broke ass shot? Did Reggie Miller have a broke ass shot? Michael Redd? Shawn Marion? Do you not draft them because their shots are ugly? Or do you look at the results/work ethic that they've shown and take the risk? At what point do you say, "That dude isn't worth drafting" and then realize that Redd, Marion, and Miller were all near 40% behind the arc or higher at some point in their careers?

I think A LOT of analytics driven draft twitter is so tied up to immediate impact but there's nearly zero focus on player development within the team and what is projected to get "fixed." Going by your idea of "broke ass shots", we shouldn't have drafted Lonzo Ball. DSJ was right there too. He's not a terrible passer, better PnR guy, way better athlete, better shot. So why did we take Zo? Somebody prioritized passing/intangibles over athleticism and skill set?

This is also exactly why I understand every prospect isn't perfect, but certain skill sets I can forgive to be taught at the NBA level.

Believe me, there's nothing "predictive" about talent development and unraveling upside. Stephen Curry wasn't supposed to be an MVP. Klay Thompson wasn't supposed to be an All-Star or elite defender. Russell Westbrook wasn't supposed to be an MVP. Harden wasn't supposed to be a better Iso player than Kevin Durant. etc.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
Troy Brown, Kevin Huerter, Chandler Hutchison, De'Anthony Melton, Jerome Robinson, Aaron Holiday, Bruce Brown, Donte Divincenzo, Josh Okogie
Jarred Vanderbilt, Landry Shamet, Alize Johnson
@Lakersoutsiders
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
panamaniac
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 7840
Location: PTY

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 9:56 pm    Post subject:

The Kuzma pick "offsets" our "missing" on Mitchell (if you wish to call it that). As both are primarily scorers with similar ceilings. Plus I'm very satisfied with us taking Lonzo, who fills a different need, and perhaps a more important one. Moreover, if we end up signing PG, no one will be complaining about "missing" on Mitchell.

Porzingis is another beast. Can stretch the floor... protect the rim ... is 7'3... Unicorn. And we picked DLo instead. Now I'll admit I was on board with that pick, but if we're affording ourselves the benefit of hindsight, Porzingis is the much bigger miss. He's the rarer talent of the two.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
AirTupac
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 04 Feb 2018
Posts: 413

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 10:10 pm    Post subject:

LakersFanESS wrote:
If you redraft now, I would still take Lonzo with the 2nd pick. He was the most unique player in the draft and can play with any type of player. I love Mitchell but Lonzo creates a culture of unselfishness that is hard to quantify. He is also bigger and a better defender, while scorers like Mitchell are easier to find. Not easy, but easier to find. Oladipo, Jaylen Brown, Lillard, etc


This. I still think Lonzo Ball surpasses Mitchell in the future. Mitchell is nice but Lonzo has some serious impact on the game. Don't get fooled just by the rookie year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 9556

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 10:51 pm    Post subject:

A LOT of people here wanted Okafor and a few people wanted Russell. This forum would have rioted if another big man was taken.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Endless3D
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 03 Mar 2018
Posts: 794

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 10:58 pm    Post subject:

If we go back since 2014 and change our picks knowing what we know now this is what I'd do.

14- Jokic
15- Devin Booker
16- Brandon InGram
17- Lonzo Ball

Lonzo/Booker/Ingram/Jokic


or I'd go with:

14- Lavine
15- KP
16- Ingram
17- Ball

Ball/Lavine/Ingram/Kristaps
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YSong
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Posts: 697

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 8:39 am    Post subject:

I think some here really nailed Porzingis but barely see any comments on Mitchell before the draft.

Overall I’m still happy we got Lonzo Ball but Deangelo Russell was a disaster. I’m glad Magic and Pelinka were able to clean up that mess and get Kuzma out of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 51577

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 9:55 am    Post subject:

The Grind wrote:
The Kuzma pick "offsets" our "missing" on Mitchell (if you wish to call it that). As both are primarily scorers with similar ceilings. Plus I'm very satisfied with us taking Lonzo, who fills a different need, and perhaps a more important one. Moreover, if we end up signing PG, no one will be complaining about "missing" on Mitchell.

Porzingis is another beast. Can stretch the floor... protect the rim ... is 7'3... Unicorn. And we picked DLo instead. Now I'll admit I was on board with that pick, but if we're affording ourselves the benefit of hindsight, Porzingis is the much bigger miss. He's the rarer talent of the two.

Porzingis has an injury concern that is legit. It's taken Embiid 4 years to have one impact season. KP isn't as big a concern as Embiid, but it's still there. He was having a great year, MVP like, then he seems like he physically hit a wall (he admits he's tired) and then he tears his ACL. Is he a proven all-star/star talent? No question. But there are some concerns here. Can Porzingis have a year where he starts strong all the way to the end and finishes it the same way? The trend with KP is that he wears himself out early on in the season. That's got to change for him.

I can't fault too many draft mistakes, but myself personally if I were drafting, I always go with the most talented big vs the most talented guard. If the talent is similar. I'm biased that way even now.

Lonzo vs Mitchell, lets see in 3 years. I think Lonzo is more talented, but Mitchell has Mamba mentality. Would have been great to have Mitchell as well. However I don't think anyone had Mitchell higher than 10.
_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6Rz0TSprFc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
cyborgspider
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 21 Sep 2017
Posts: 823

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 9:58 am    Post subject:

YSong wrote:

Overall I’m still happy we got Lonzo Ball but Deangelo Russell was a disaster. I’m glad Magic and Pelinka were able to clean up that mess and get Kuzma out of it.


My narrative is "it also got them out of Mozgov's contract" so double bonus points right there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 82564
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 10:04 am    Post subject:

wolfpaclaker wrote:
The Grind wrote:
The Kuzma pick "offsets" our "missing" on Mitchell (if you wish to call it that). As both are primarily scorers with similar ceilings. Plus I'm very satisfied with us taking Lonzo, who fills a different need, and perhaps a more important one. Moreover, if we end up signing PG, no one will be complaining about "missing" on Mitchell.

Porzingis is another beast. Can stretch the floor... protect the rim ... is 7'3... Unicorn. And we picked DLo instead. Now I'll admit I was on board with that pick, but if we're affording ourselves the benefit of hindsight, Porzingis is the much bigger miss. He's the rarer talent of the two.

Porzingis has an injury concern that is legit. It's taken Embiid 4 years to have one impact season. KP isn't as big a concern as Embiid, but it's still there. He was having a great year, MVP like, then he seems like he physically hit a wall (he admits he's tired) and then he tears his ACL. Is he a proven all-star/star talent? No question. But there are some concerns here. Can Porzingis have a year where he starts strong all the way to the end and finishes it the same way? The trend with KP is that he wears himself out early on in the season. That's got to change for him.

I can't fault too many draft mistakes, but myself personally if I were drafting, I always go with the most talented big vs the most talented guard. If the talent is similar. I'm biased that way even now.

Lonzo vs Mitchell, lets see in 3 years. I think Lonzo is more talented, but Mitchell has Mamba mentality. Would have been great to have Mitchell as well. However I don't think anyone had Mitchell higher than 10.


He was only having an MVP few weeks is the problem, as it always is. He drops off a cliff like clockwork a month into every NBA season.
_________________
Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 128003
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 2:43 pm    Post subject:

The Grind wrote:
The Kuzma pick "offsets" our "missing" on Mitchell (if you wish to call it that). As both are primarily scorers with similar ceilings. Plus I'm very satisfied with us taking Lonzo, who fills a different need, and perhaps a more important one. Moreover, if we end up signing PG, no one will be complaining about "missing" on Mitchell.

Porzingis is another beast. Can stretch the floor... protect the rim ... is 7'3... Unicorn. And we picked DLo instead. Now I'll admit I was on board with that pick, but if we're affording ourselves the benefit of hindsight, Porzingis is the much bigger miss. He's the rarer talent of the two.


I too am satisfied with Ball but wanted Tatum and I haven’t seen anything to change my mind. As for Porky the concern for a player of his size was health and so far that hasn’t gone well.
_________________
It’s a girl, my lord, in a flat bed Ford.......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
PayasoLoco
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 14365

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 2:49 pm    Post subject:

Im really happy with our drafting except 2015. We missed out on Porzingis and Booker but i think the player that hurts the most was a player many on LG wanted myles turner. i remember others saying his running was odd and injury risk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Mike@LG
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 59741
Location: Orange County, CA

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 3:22 pm    Post subject:

PayasoLoco wrote:
Im really happy with our drafting except 2015. We missed out on Porzingis and Booker but i think the player that hurts the most was a player many on LG wanted myles turner. i remember others saying his running was odd and injury risk


Dude shot fire during the playoffs, but almost had the same block average as Julius Randle...

... and not as switchable.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
Troy Brown, Kevin Huerter, Chandler Hutchison, De'Anthony Melton, Jerome Robinson, Aaron Holiday, Bruce Brown, Donte Divincenzo, Josh Okogie
Jarred Vanderbilt, Landry Shamet, Alize Johnson
@Lakersoutsiders
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Beir32
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 16 Feb 2016
Posts: 285
Location: Western PA

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 1:44 am    Post subject:

Mitchell is on the fast track to superstardom but I haven't read anything that suggests he was in the top 2 on anyone's board in the entire league entering the draft. Unless that happens then my stance is that either he shouldn't be considered a "miss" or 12 other teams are in the same boat as the Lakers.

Considering our scouting for the past draft in particular had been top notch I'm willing to bet that very few if any scouts in NBA organizations or internet scouting sites saw this kid coming.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 93522
Location: Do you believe in Magic?

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 5:24 am    Post subject:

PayasoLoco wrote:
Im really happy with our drafting except 2015. We missed out on Porzingis and Booker but i think the player that hurts the most was a player many on LG wanted myles turner. i remember others saying his running was odd and injury risk


Booker was not on anyone's radar at the top 5. Not worth crying over and Porky is showing that injury/durability concerns were for real.

Thank goodness we didn't get Okafor. At least DLO was able to get us off Moz, get Brook for a year, and a 1st rounder. That's a lot of value.
_________________
We have LBJ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
deal
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 10927
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 5:49 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
The Grind wrote:
The Kuzma pick "offsets" our "missing" on Mitchell (if you wish to call it that). As both are primarily scorers with similar ceilings. Plus I'm very satisfied with us taking Lonzo, who fills a different need, and perhaps a more important one. Moreover, if we end up signing PG, no one will be complaining about "missing" on Mitchell.

Porzingis is another beast. Can stretch the floor... protect the rim ... is 7'3... Unicorn. And we picked DLo instead. Now I'll admit I was on board with that pick, but if we're affording ourselves the benefit of hindsight, Porzingis is the much bigger miss. He's the rarer talent of the two.


I too am satisfied with Ball but wanted Tatum and I haven’t seen anything to change my mind. As for Porky the concern for a player of his size was health and so far that hasn’t gone well.



Exactly; Tatum was the big miss IMO.
_________________
The move
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 93522
Location: Do you believe in Magic?

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 5:52 am    Post subject:

deal wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
The Grind wrote:
The Kuzma pick "offsets" our "missing" on Mitchell (if you wish to call it that). As both are primarily scorers with similar ceilings. Plus I'm very satisfied with us taking Lonzo, who fills a different need, and perhaps a more important one. Moreover, if we end up signing PG, no one will be complaining about "missing" on Mitchell.

Porzingis is another beast. Can stretch the floor... protect the rim ... is 7'3... Unicorn. And we picked DLo instead. Now I'll admit I was on board with that pick, but if we're affording ourselves the benefit of hindsight, Porzingis is the much bigger miss. He's the rarer talent of the two.


I too am satisfied with Ball but wanted Tatum and I haven’t seen anything to change my mind. As for Porky the concern for a player of his size was health and so far that hasn’t gone well.



Exactly; Tatum was the big miss IMO.


I don't think you can be that definitive after year 1. Tatum is balling deep into the playoffs. But Lonzo, you have to give it more than 1 year.
_________________
We have LBJ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 4978

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 5:56 am    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
deal wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
The Grind wrote:
The Kuzma pick "offsets" our "missing" on Mitchell (if you wish to call it that). As both are primarily scorers with similar ceilings. Plus I'm very satisfied with us taking Lonzo, who fills a different need, and perhaps a more important one. Moreover, if we end up signing PG, no one will be complaining about "missing" on Mitchell.

Porzingis is another beast. Can stretch the floor... protect the rim ... is 7'3... Unicorn. And we picked DLo instead. Now I'll admit I was on board with that pick, but if we're affording ourselves the benefit of hindsight, Porzingis is the much bigger miss. He's the rarer talent of the two.


I too am satisfied with Ball but wanted Tatum and I haven’t seen anything to change my mind. As for Porky the concern for a player of his size was health and so far that hasn’t gone well.



Exactly; Tatum was the big miss IMO.


I don't think you can be that definitive after year 1. Tatum is balling deep into the playoffs. But Lonzo, you have to give it more than 1 year.


Ball was a long term pick. With that said, Tatum would’ve been the only guy I would’ve been happy with for that pick besides Lonzo. Either has a chance to end up the better player.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
pmacla
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Posts: 7520
Location: Los Angeles, CA

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 6:01 am    Post subject:

Tatum is doing what he is doing because of having opportunity. if Hayward never gets hurt he maybe avg 20 mins a night and shows some promise but with Tatum and Mitchell they both had unlimited opportunity and the ability to make mistakes without fear of being pulled or benched, they seized their opportunity and their confidence has flourished. So we see guys out there who are just balling free. I am confident with who the Lakers have drafted and our player development. It is great the NBA has such a nice bunch of young talent to take the league into the future
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 93522
Location: Do you believe in Magic?

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 6:07 am    Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
deal wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
The Grind wrote:
The Kuzma pick "offsets" our "missing" on Mitchell (if you wish to call it that). As both are primarily scorers with similar ceilings. Plus I'm very satisfied with us taking Lonzo, who fills a different need, and perhaps a more important one. Moreover, if we end up signing PG, no one will be complaining about "missing" on Mitchell.

Porzingis is another beast. Can stretch the floor... protect the rim ... is 7'3... Unicorn. And we picked DLo instead. Now I'll admit I was on board with that pick, but if we're affording ourselves the benefit of hindsight, Porzingis is the much bigger miss. He's the rarer talent of the two.


I too am satisfied with Ball but wanted Tatum and I haven’t seen anything to change my mind. As for Porky the concern for a player of his size was health and so far that hasn’t gone well.



Exactly; Tatum was the big miss IMO.


I don't think you can be that definitive after year 1. Tatum is balling deep into the playoffs. But Lonzo, you have to give it more than 1 year.


Ball was a long term pick. With that said, Tatum would’ve been the only guy I would’ve been happy with for that pick besides Lonzo. Either has a chance to end up the better player.


Yeah. Tatum's been a resounding success. But with BI at "SF" I think they felt good about him and looked for a PG replacement as they traded DLO and weren't pursuing a max level FA replacement at that position.

There can be a universe where both Ball/Tatum really flourish.
_________________
We have LBJ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 9 of 13
Jump to:  

 
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






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB