Jump to content


Photo

2017 NBA Lottery / Draft


  • Please log in to reply
4943 replies to this topic

#4921 Julien

Julien

    Off The Bench

  • Member
  • 1,978 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted June 25, 2017 - 01:44 PM

Surprised by the Celtics pick. I knew they liked Tatum and Jackson but I really thought they were going Jackson. I guess Ainge was that pissed off at Jackson not willing to work out for them.


From what I ve heard on EPSN it was even worse than that.
The Celtics flew all the way to Sacramento to see his workout. When they arrived there they received a call to inform them that the workout was cancelled. So they stayed overnight and flew back to Boston the next day.
Lol

#4922 dazz

dazz

    ..............

  • Member
  • 1,204 posts

Posted June 25, 2017 - 01:47 PM

You're acting like we should all have one view...that almost NEVER happens...unless that's not how you meant the word "dichotomy".

 

That's not what I meant by dichotomy because that's not what dichotomy means.


hsl17b.jpg


#4923 ChichoGarcy

ChichoGarcy

    Off The Bench

  • Member
  • 1,701 posts
  • Location:Argentina
  • Name:Chicho
  • Fan Since:1992
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted June 25, 2017 - 01:51 PM

They have a gang of cap and Mozgov will be off their books well before they are good enough to have to worry about his contract.  
 


It says the Nets turned the 27th plus Lopez into D'angelo Russell, and that's a steal. No mention of Mozgov's contract for the next 3 years. Doesn't make any sense.



You don't know that, and not mentioning they're taking a very high contract for a bench guy... I still don't like the trade for the Lakers, but it's definitely not a steal for the Nets.

#4924 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 13,358 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted June 25, 2017 - 02:38 PM

Russell isn't a higher flyer by any means but he's atleast an average athlete.  Ingram while lengthy isn't exactly a high flyer either.  Im not rating ceiling based on athleticism either.  For one Russell was just a flat out better bucket getter than both at the college level and pretty much proved that at the NBA level.  Ingram struggled a lot to score for the majority of the year.  

 

I didn't do it solely on athleticism.  It's also based on position (PG or SG), competition (Western Conference) and potential for growth of his skills relative to where he is.

 

PG/SG - he's going to have to get past better athletes or depend on P&R to get to the basket, which he has a hard time doing on his own.

 

West Conference - he's got a lot of competition.  No matter how skilled he is, he's not going to trump skill AND better athletes at his position.

 

Potential Skill Growth - what skill do you think Russell doesn't have that he can acquire?  And I'm serious.  He's pretty close to maxed out on the amount of skills you want from a guard.  What he doesn't have is the athleticism/speed to take any of it to the next level.

 

And if you're arguing he's a good athlete, I'll argue Ball and Ingram are better athletes.

If you're arguing he's got skills, I will argue both Ball and Ingram have skills and athleticism.

 

No matter what, Ball and Ingram's ceiling's are higher than Russell's if all of them reach their max potential, IMHO.


Either way Im kind of over arguing about the on court stuff.  I dont think Russell was traded b/c he didn't cut the mustard or was lacking in production at all.  If anything I believe that's what should have saved him.  They disagreed with that and felt that 2018 cap room was more important.  We will find out next year if that's the case.  

 

I don't put a lot of stock in the hearsay either...I view this from a point of logic which is Russell helped shed Moz's contract and create a path for cap space next year.

 


Personally I would have preferred Lonzo AND D'angelo working interchangeably.  Russell should have never been forced into a pure playmaker b/c he never WAS that.  Just like Lonzo isn't a scorer but he can shoot.  

 

Lonzo: Playmaker that can shoot but not a scorer 

D'Angelo: Scorer that can make plays like a PG

 

 

 There's a case to be made for that.  I don't think you're wrong.  I don't think trading Russell is wrong either.  Lots of different perspectives that are neither wrong nor right.

 

 

 

 

GCMD, don't shift the burden of proof. It's your claim, not mine, that "some people don't believe in the Front Office and won't give them a chance"

 

 

I gave an example of the person who did it and how it applied.  It's clear to everyone who I was talking about but he's cool with me so I didn't want to throw him under the bus.  It wasn't because it wasn't true.   I also mentioned FIDO as an example of someone who didn't feel enamored with Russell and didn't want to build around him.  Those statements are TRUE and if you ask them, they will tell you that (Maj, be honest, LOL).

 

You did NOT provide an explanation of what was misrepresenting or false about what I said.  You just created an argument based on what you read into what I said...and that's by definition, a straw man.

 

So the burden of proof DOES lie with you.  My statements were fact.  I could go back and pull up statements from both of these guys and others that would support those assessments.  Can you PROVE that Majesty DIDN'T post those things?  No.

 

Also you claimed I created a false dichotomy.  I did not.  You have to prove I did because that's YOUR claim...in fact, your claim ignored other data inside the same post to MISREPRESENT my views...again, straw man.


You ask me to prove a negative.

 

You stated I said something that was not correct.  I asked you for proof that it wasn't.  That's not a negative.

 

Proving a negative is when someone asks if there has NEVER been a person who shares that view...I made the claim that a person does and he did.  You claim he didn't.  The statements in question EXIST.  I asked you to prove that what I was saying was false, which you can't.  That's not a negative, that's a conformation of FACTS and examination of well-defined and constricted evidence...I did not ask you to attempt to disprove something from an infinite data set.

 

Rule of best evidence - I have some with description and detail, you have nothing but a denial.  My statement with detail and description is more evidentiary than your claim that it's incorrect without reasoning, examples or rationale.


Fact remains, no one has argued that Russell's trade is bad because they don't believe in the FO and whatever they might do is wrong. Maj has repeatedly said that he believes this trade forces us to go all in for PG, and that he doesn't believe that George will stay if we sign him anyway.

 

This is untrue.  I call Majesty to witness that he did indeed say that he doesn't trust this front office and didn't trust them before this trade...

 

He can give any rationale he wants for not liking this particular trade but it does not refute my statement.  You can disagree with the part about not giving them a chance and we can have that discussion but he did indeed have misgivings and mistrust of this Front Office long before this move. 

 

I also don't trust this Front Office.  I have said this multiple times.  But I choose to give them 1 offseason to prove they can or can't handle the task...at least before I pass judgement on their first move.

 


Your caricature of Maj's position is laughable

 

Your use of the word "caricature" in light of Majesty's OVER REACTION is hilarious!!!  LOL...it's like you're trolling Majesty now...

 

Majesty's reaction was severe.  I don't think that saying "he doesn't trust the Front Office and won't give them a chance" is anything CLOSE to as laughable as his "opinions" since the Russell Trade.

 

 

You can't pretend he wasn't easily the most "upset" poster here and was told by MULTIPLE respected posters to "just calm down".  Calling what I said a "caricature", which was meant to be a NICE description of his reaction, is kinda silly (no disrespect meant) and has no descriptive/evidentiary value without reference or context.  If you think that your character statement does ANYTHING to refute the many pages of posts Majesty himself has made, you're wrong.  If you want to defend him, do a better job and try not to pick arguments (Maj's position) you simply can't win...


tenor.gif


#4925 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 13,358 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted June 25, 2017 - 02:48 PM

That's not what I meant by dichotomy because that's not what dichotomy means.

 

 

In this context, yes it does.  I double majored in biology and chemistry...dichotomy is a word I am VERY familiar with...not that it matters, I could have defined this in elementary school...it's not a complicated word.

 


3) is a blatant misrepresentation of the arguments put forth against the trade.

You've also turned the whole thing into a ridiculous false dichotomy, implying that one either believes Russell is a franchise player worth building around, or else the trade is fine.

 

Of course there are lots of perspectives, but you never addressed the actual arguments against the trade: that it looked rushed and we sold low for instance

 

I'm not going to keep arguing over this though, let's just move on

 

 

Even if a person DIDN'T know what dichotomy meant, you defined it and constrained it's meaning in your own post.  "Either" "Or"...pretty clear what your meaning was.  I didn't constrain the number of perspectives...I actually acknowledged the existence of "LOTS" of different views while also acknowledging none are right or wrong.

 

I destroyed any chance of anyone misconstruing my statement as an attempt to constrain or limit the possible opinions, at least I thought I did...you managed to STILL make up a false charge, though.  I did not attack Jody's list as being misrepresentative.  I just added what I felt was helpful for discussion of the points without assuming an implied argument based on perspectives not defined.

 

You're trying to make a point that doesn't exist.  I have no problem with people not liking the trade.  I don't like trade because I thought we could get more.  So why are you attacking my points of discussion?  Arguing that they are misleading or misrepresenting or false?  There is no wrong or right in these opinions.


Edited by GCMD, June 25, 2017 - 03:27 PM.

tenor.gif


#4926 dazz

dazz

    ..............

  • Member
  • 1,204 posts

Posted June 25, 2017 - 02:49 PM

On a different note, I have tweaked my sig 


  • kball likes this

hsl17b.jpg


#4927 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 13,358 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted June 25, 2017 - 03:16 PM

Did anyone think that another team had a better draft than us?

 

I thought that Ball / Kuzma / Hart was very good based on the # they were taken and how they addressed team fit.  I had Ball as BPA in this draft while Fultz being a better prospect so I think we did pretty well.  

 

Before anyone goes into the Ball vs FUltz thing, my opinion is based on my view of Fultz as a PG, not SG or scoring guard, which he will be in the NBA.  I have no problem with saying he should have gone #1 overall.

 

So please, let's not go there.


tenor.gif


#4928    

   

  • Member
  • 43,917 posts

Posted June 25, 2017 - 03:22 PM

^ I see no mention of Bryant there. I'm too assume you're not too fond of that pick eh?

yo.


#4929 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 13,358 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted June 25, 2017 - 03:29 PM

^ I see no mention of Bryant there. I'm too assume you're not too fond of that pick eh?

 

 

You are correct...


tenor.gif


#4930    

   

  • Member
  • 43,917 posts

Posted June 25, 2017 - 03:35 PM

Can somebody get up the summer league thread (Maj maybe?) as well as the roster and invites? Was Devin Robinson drafted by anyone?

yo.


#4931 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 13,358 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted June 25, 2017 - 03:52 PM

Can somebody get up the summer league thread (Maj maybe?) as well as the roster and invites? Was Devin Robinson drafted by anyone?

 

 

You can start one...

 

Devin Robinson was not drafted but he signed a Summer League Contract with the Wizards.

 

 

Both of my Gamecocks landed in LA...Sindarius was drafted by the Clippers and PJ signed a free agent deal with the Lakers!  LOL...


Edited by GCMD, June 25, 2017 - 06:10 PM.

tenor.gif


#4932 kball

kball

    Mocker-in-Chief

  • Member
  • 7,537 posts
  • Fan Since:'71
  • Fav. Laker:kobe, magic, logo

Posted June 25, 2017 - 04:34 PM

Russell isn't a higher flyer by any means but he's atleast an average athlete.  Ingram while lengthy isn't exactly a high flyer either.  Im not rating ceiling based on athleticism either.  For one Russell was just a flat out better bucket getter than both at the college level and pretty much proved that at the NBA level.  Ingram struggled a lot to score for the majority of the year.  

 

 

The hopeful sign is that while true, Ingram seemed able to pretty easily get off shots (and not only because why guard him!) but also pretty easily with a variety of silky moves to the rim.  

Once he finds his stroke he should get points rather easily i would think


  • GCMD and     like this

Praying for  1. Some Cohesion (Ill fitting parts with young bucks, new guys, and those playing for next contracts may muck things up all season) 2. Better Coaching, No More Tanking (Last season was more of the latter but not sure how much of the former we can count on. Walton with something to prove this season as much as any Laker player) 3. Rookie Watch (Hoping Lonzo outshines his daddy (ROTY??), and Kuzma finds minutes and makes a push for all rook 2nd team)

READY FOR SEASON!!!

 

 


#4933 kball

kball

    Mocker-in-Chief

  • Member
  • 7,537 posts
  • Fan Since:'71
  • Fav. Laker:kobe, magic, logo

Posted June 25, 2017 - 04:36 PM

On a different note, I have tweaked my sig 

Flip Nance for Brook 


Praying for  1. Some Cohesion (Ill fitting parts with young bucks, new guys, and those playing for next contracts may muck things up all season) 2. Better Coaching, No More Tanking (Last season was more of the latter but not sure how much of the former we can count on. Walton with something to prove this season as much as any Laker player) 3. Rookie Watch (Hoping Lonzo outshines his daddy (ROTY??), and Kuzma finds minutes and makes a push for all rook 2nd team)

READY FOR SEASON!!!

 

 


#4934 UKUGA

UKUGA

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 7,576 posts
  • Location:22033
  • Name:UKUGA
  • Fan Since:1981
  • Fav. Laker:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Posted June 26, 2017 - 04:14 AM

Did anyone think that another team had a better draft than us?

 

I thought that Ball / Kuzma / Hart was very good based on the # they were taken and how they addressed team fit.  I had Ball as BPA in this draft while Fultz being a better prospect so I think we did pretty well.  

 

 

 

Sacramento maybe. 

 

Turning the 10 into the 15 & 20, and getting arguably a better player at both spots than the Blazers got at 10 was pretty impressive.  Obviously, Giles is the wild card here. 


Edited by UKUGA, June 26, 2017 - 04:14 AM.

  • GCMD likes this

Don't feed the trolls. 


#4935 DanishLakerFan

DanishLakerFan

    Hall Of Fame

  • Member
  • 8,702 posts
  • Fan Since:1998
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted June 26, 2017 - 08:25 AM

Sacramento maybe.

Turning the 10 into the 15 & 20, and getting arguably a better player at both spots than the Blazers got at 10 was pretty impressive. Obviously, Giles is the wild card here.


Totally disagree here. I think they missed out on a chance to add the Kentucky backcourt of Monk and Fox, which would have been awesome.

#4936 UKUGA

UKUGA

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 7,576 posts
  • Location:22033
  • Name:UKUGA
  • Fan Since:1981
  • Fav. Laker:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Posted June 26, 2017 - 08:47 AM

Totally disagree here. I think they missed out on a chance to add the Kentucky backcourt of Monk and Fox, which would have been awesome.

 

They have Hield.

 

They turned the potential of Monk into Jackson & Giles.

 

Boosted the odds of a strong return immensely.


Don't feed the trolls. 


#4937 Jody Smokes

Jody Smokes

    Legend

  • Member
  • 12,280 posts
  • Fan Since:2003
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted June 30, 2017 - 11:04 AM

I think they should've taken Monk looking back. I'm not a fan of Hield. They don't have enough talent to draft for fit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Blake and Parker are good at canceling each other out till our bench point guard comes in"  - Majesty aka Bird Ish (12/4/13)


#4938 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 13,358 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted June 30, 2017 - 01:23 PM

I think they should've taken Monk looking back. I'm not a fan of Hield. They don't have enough talent to draft for fit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

I like Jackson and I think he's one of the more NBA Ready player in this draft.

 

If Giles is even close to what he was projected to be 2 years ago, he's the steal of this draft.  Very Under-rated pick if it works out.


  • UKUGA likes this

tenor.gif


#4939 Jody Smokes

Jody Smokes

    Legend

  • Member
  • 12,280 posts
  • Fan Since:2003
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted June 30, 2017 - 02:36 PM

People throw around NBA ready because guys are older. Not sure if that means much though. Wasn't really a fan of Justin Jackson though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Blake and Parker are good at canceling each other out till our bench point guard comes in"  - Majesty aka Bird Ish (12/4/13)


#4940 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 13,358 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted June 30, 2017 - 02:41 PM

People throw around NBA ready because guys are older. Not sure if that means much though. Wasn't really a fan of Justin Jackson though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Actually, no.  He's the same age as Randle and he has experience winning and being the best player at a very good program and winning the NCAA Ch'ip.  Very similar to Josh Hart.


tenor.gif





5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (2), Alexa (2)