34 replies to this topic

[GCMD]

Simple question.  

 

 

Do you think that we should continue to stockpile young players?

 

Or do you think we should trade 1 or 2 of the young players for a more established vet/star?

 

 

 

IMHO, I understand both POVs.  I get why you'd be afraid to trade away the "next big thing" but I can also understand the desire to "right the ship".  IMHO, competing has to be the goal no matter how good GSW or the Cavs are...so I believe that you can make a case for both but it depends entirely on who the players are you're considering trading, who you're considering trading for and what style/fit you need to be competitive.

 

 

 

What say you?

[last stand 2.0]

I don't think it's one or the other and here's why. We have so much youth that we can mix and match. But unless we can deal for 2 guys like lillard and George and still keep 2 blue chip prospects I don't think it's worth the trouble.

I've seen people say we should try to beat the warriors now because they'll just restock once Durant and curry decline

That's just not true. Lakers the nbas premier franchise has gone through droughts after every dynasty. Some longer than others

The warriors and cavs within 3-5 years will decline adequately enough for us to rise back to prominence

The only way to do that is hit on a draft pick or 2. It's THE only way. Why? Because you're talking about 2 core pieces who become elite players and are all under 26 by the time golden state declines

So then you're in a position to compete. It's why this year is so important as an evaluation tool. Keep all youth and see which guys are the core guys and which ones can be traded for improvements

[FranklinPeanuts]

I am one to believe that you keep doing what you are doing. Why the Lakers are not going to keep all of these young guys. I truly feel that one of them or two will be traded.

I also say you put your best foot forward and compete even if GS is the standard right now. That way, as they are on the decline, the younger teams like The Suns, Sixers, Wolves and etc would be on the rise.

So I guess I am saying stockpile because eventually, a trade will have to be done at some point and teams will be looking for assets and the Lakers have quite a few they could deal that other teams will eventually question

[kidpolean]

I think most people only want to keep a few players which isn't really stockpiling imo. Start Russell, Ball and Ingram. Zubac can come off the bench for a couple more seasons. Surround those guys with vets and a solid bench. I don't care about Nance, Randle, Clarkson, the 28th pick, Nwaba, Black, or Ennis. I'd trade all of them lol.

[Clutch Factor]

We need to build around Russell, Ingram, and the #2 pick. Those players have the highest potential.

 

Continue to establish Luke's offense, and hopefully we'll be in play for the 2018 free agency. 

[GCMD]

All intelligent responses and viable options.

 

I agree that trading 1 or 2 away to be competitive in the short term and keeping blue chippers to groom/develop is best long term.  I also agree that our window will open back up in a few years.

 

 

How soon do you think we need to move any of our young core in a trade?  Some people suggest waiting a year or 1.5 years to see if they can gel...but I think if we are going to hit the reset button, we should do it sooner rather than later...

[FranklinPeanuts]

All intelligent responses and viable options.

I agree that trading 1 or 2 away to be competitive in the short term and keeping blue chippers to groom/develop is best long term. I also agree that our window will open back up in a few years.


How soon do you think we need to move any of our young core in a trade? Some people suggest waiting a year or 1.5 years to see if they can gel...but I think if we are going to hit the reset button, we should do it sooner rather than later...

For me, it's around the same time when it is time to extend Randle and Russell after that. Will they be worth It by the time that time? Right now? No.. They have to show signs of commitment to strengthen the weaker part of their game. Randle has to be able to play team ball vs trying to do too much versus doing the basics. Russell has shown flashes.of he could be, but he has to be consistent with that kind of play. Then maybe, they could look at paying them. I like JC, but if he is one to be traded, bye bye.

[Jody Smokes]

I think you can do both I just think this offseason is way to early to consider trading any of the young core.  The ones that you actually get you the quality star player you'd want are the ones you want to actually keep.  That's D'angelo and Ingram.  Highest potential.  I would trade Clarkson and Randle in any deal that made sense over those guys.   

Edited by Jody Smokes, June 13, 2017 - 06:56 PM.

[GCMD]

We are coming up to a time where we want to add stars AND we will need to pay some of our youth...how they play affects how we spend money.

 

 

You all know how I feel about Randle but just say we take the gamble and pay Randle.  Is that a smart move?

[Jody Smokes]

Are we though?  We've expressed similar views on Randle just differences on the timeline and when to make a move.  I personally think he should be a mid season trade IF he hasn't improved his shooting.  Who they draft should also factor into this.  If they select Fox or Jackson then moving Randle is an absolute must b/c there is no way this team has any spacing with Randle, Fox/Jackson and Mozgov/Zu sharing the floor at the same time.  

 

Secondly rushing into getting a "vet" is what Orlando did.  I mean if you want to make a case for trading for Paul George then maybe that's an ok idea IF you can retain him.  However, what other "vets" would you or anyone have in mind?  Vets is a vague term.  Quite frankly I dont see any reason to move the young core for anything less than chasing an bonafide all star no less than top 10-12 player.  

 

Paul George is still a weird case.  You trade for him on an expiring deal and [expletive] goes left and he leaves THEN what?  What is the plan B for that?  That's Dwight all over again.  4 years of terrible Laker years for that.  I honestly dont think the FO wants to get burned again.  

 

We are coming up to a time where we want to add stars AND we will need to pay some of our youth...how they play affects how we spend money.

 

 

You all know how I feel about Randle but just say we take the gamble and pay Randle.  Is that a smart move?

[Tensai]

The way I look at it, neither Ingram nor Ball is gonna take the league by storm by their 4th year. If we consider those two to be the cornerstones of the franchise, then I don't have any problem trading the excess youth to bring quality veterans. One thing that is overlooked is that the FO has aspirations to sign max level contracts (two) in next summer. That means we are looking to not only make the playoffs, but also trust those veteran players to be the main engines of the team as a starter. If the prediction that Ingram and Ball improves to be a good to great player down the road, then it makes sense to close the gap until they blossom into one.

 

I think some of the current "young" players do not meet this timeline - Randle and Clarkson to be exact. And some of them are in the middle - Russell and Nance Jr. If were to make moves, we should start from Randle and Clarkson. And if necessary, parting with Russell should not be a problem. The below is the current outlook of the team:

 

Luol Deng (10yr exp)

Corey Brewer (10yr exp)

Timofey Mozgov (7yr exp)

----

Tarik Black (3yr exp)

Julius Randle (3yr exp)

Jordan Clarkson (3yr exp)

----

D'Angelo Russell (2yr exp)

Larry Nance Jr. (2yr exp)

----

Brandon Ingram (1yr exp)

Ivica Zubac (1yr exp)

David Nwaba (1yr exp)

Lonzo Ball ®

#28 ®

 

Low value mediocre contribution

Mediocre value mediocre contribution

High value mediocre contribution

 

We need mediocre/high value high contribution players in order to improve the record. (We already lost Lou who was one of them)

Edited by Tensai, June 13, 2017 - 07:32 PM.

[Jody Smokes]

As down as we on Randle's shooting lets not act like he didn't improve offensively overall.  He doubled his assist rate, shot 65% at the rim vs 56% in the previous year and pushed it a lot on the break.  He started to increase his volume of 3s post all star break and his percentage went up as well.  Next year LA needs to be ALL  about development.  Randle and Nance need to shoot 3s when open as much as possible.  

[Jody Smokes]

Guys focusing on win totals are putting the cart before the horse.  Developing these guys and giving the core the tools to make their development easier is the goal.  Jim/Mitch thought getting Mozgov/Deng would do this.  They just severely overbid.  Russell is the one guy that if you stuck him on a team with better shooting and finishers he'd look like a borderline all star overnight.  However playing with other guys that are developing their game and still have a lot to add and learn doesn't help the case of a guy that has had to be the top scorer and playmaker on the team.  Lou was the best scorer but he literally got most of his buckets going one on one.  Which isn't exactly a good foundation for a good team.  He also become who he really is in the playoffs.  Super streaky, can't make plays or play defense.  

[Jody Smokes]

OKC made playoffs in KD's 3rd year, Russ 2nd and Harden and Serge were a rookies.  KD was also viewed as to sure all star talent from jump.  They won a combined 43 games the previous 2 years.  About the same amount as LA.  GS made the playoffs in Steph's 4th season, this was after acquiring a quality vet in David Lee at the time and Andrew Bogut for defense.  

 

A lot what has to happen is INTERNAL growth.  That seemed to be ignored alot when guys talk about improving the team.  Russell, Ingram, Randle and Zubac actually getting BETTER.  A trade isn't always the solution.  Signing Paul George is a guaranteed improvement but being a good team again still requires the guys to get better.  Which they can and they HAVE, except Clarkson. 

[Ventiquattro]

The way I look at it, neither Ingram nor Ball is gonna take the league by storm by their 4th year. If we consider those two to be the cornerstones of the franchise, then I don't have any problem trading the excess youth to bring quality veterans. One thing that is overlooked is that the FO has aspirations to sign max level contracts (two) in next summer. That means we are looking to not only make the playoffs, but also trust those veteran players to be the main engines of the team as a starter. If the prediction that Ingram and Ball improves to be a good to great player down the road, then it makes sense to close the gap until they blossom into one.

 

I think some of the current "young" players do not meet this timeline - Randle and Clarkson to be exact. And some of them are in the middle - Russell and Nance Jr. If were to make moves, we should start from Randle and Clarkson. And if necessary, parting with Russell should not be a problem. The below is the current outlook of the team:

 

Luol Deng (10yr exp)

Corey Brewer (10yr exp)

Timofey Mozgov (7yr exp)

----

Tarik Black (3yr exp)

Julius Randle (3yr exp)

Jordan Clarkson (3yr exp)

----

D'Angelo Russell (2yr exp)

Larry Nance Jr. (2yr exp)

----

Brandon Ingram (1yr exp)

Ivica Zubac (1yr exp)

David Nwaba (1yr exp)

Lonzo Ball ®

#28 ®

 

Low value mediocre contribution

Mediocre value mediocre contribution

High value mediocre contribution

 

We need mediocre/high value high contribution players in order to improve the record. (We already lost Lou who was one of them)

 

Im kinda confused. You're acknowledging that it will take Ingram and Ball time to reach their potential or have a meaningful impact but refuse to use the same logic with Russell or, Randle to a lesser extent. 

[Tensai]

Im kinda confused. You're acknowledging that it will take Ingram and Ball time to reach their potential or have a meaningful impact but refuse to use the same logic with Russell or, Randle to a lesser extent. 

 

With Russell and Randle there are chronic problems which I don't think they will be able to overcome. With Russell it is lack of speed, lack of aggressiveness to attack the hole, and lack of defense. With Randle, it is lack of outside shot, lack of defense and lack of intelligence among his many other problems.

 

Ingram in pre-allstar term and post-allstar term are like black and white. That is why I'm excluding him. Magic said the same thing. Only Ingram is untouchable. With Ball, we will see. Personally I have problems with his game too, but as an overall package for what he can bring, he is probably the best option.

 

We have seen enough of Russell and Randle on NBA level. That is the point. I don't need to simulate 4 more seasons to judge if he is gonna be an adequate player. We don't have that luxury.

Edited by Tensai, June 13, 2017 - 09:09 PM.

[FranklinPeanuts]

At some point and time, somebody has to he traded or let walk. Right? I think that most ofmus agree that Ingram, This year's pick and possibly Russell are the players that the majority of us fans deem as part of the future
Honorable mentions goes to Zubac, Nance and Randle.

I guess whoever stated to wait to all-star break to determine if you want then speak on trading some of the youth, that s fair.. just in hopes that certain player(s) have progressed.

[manaro90]

To be honest, I like to add us some veterans for our young core through FA

 

Get us Richard Jefferson! Hes the best buddy of Luke and he has championship experience. I know he is 37, but 1 last year wouldnt hurt him. 

[bfc1125roy]

Patience is the key. But you also have to be willing to make the right moves, whether it's in FA or trade. Obviously being OKC or GSW where you draft 3 all stars is a very idealistic scenario. So if you have to trade a young guy to get an all-star in his prime, it might be the right move.

 

It really depends on who we're trading for who. Would I trade Russell/Clarkson for Butler? Yes. Replace one of those guys with Ingram, then no. What about George? Maybe, but unlikely, because I think we can get him in FA.

 

It's important to be optimistic about our young guy's potential, but also realistic. So while I hope Russell, Randle, and Ingram all become superstars, I realistically don't think they all will. If we trade them, it should be when their value is high. 

 

I'd say Randle < Russell < Ingram at this point, with Ingram being the closest to "untouchable." Take that how you want.

 

I still say we roll the dice with Lonzo and see what happens though. 

Edited by bfc1125roy, June 13, 2017 - 10:35 PM.

[DanishLakerFan]

Simple question.  

 

 

Do you think that we should continue to stockpile young players?

 

Or do you think we should trade 1 or 2 of the young players for a more established vet/star?

 

 

 

IMHO, I understand both POVs.  I get why you'd be afraid to trade away the "next big thing" but I can also understand the desire to "right the ship".  IMHO, competing has to be the goal no matter how good GSW or the Cavs are...so I believe that you can make a case for both but it depends entirely on who the players are you're considering trading, who you're considering trading for and what style/fit you need to be competitive.

 

 

 

What say you?

 

Russell, Ingram and #2 should be untouchable, for now.

 

Randle is a FA in 2018 so we have to see what the market is for him.

Clarkson went from being a nice asset on his rookie deal to a neutral asset, at best, on his current deal.

 

Zubac and Nance are nice assets on solid deals. If we can get value for these guys, great.

 

Given our needs i would make it a priority to move Clarkson and i would probably move one of Nance or Randle AND i would try to use one of our minor assets to shed one of the bigger deals in Deng and Mozzy.

 

Find players in free Agency to build around Russell, Ingram and #2.

Edited by DanishLakerFan, June 14, 2017 - 02:11 AM.