The terribly mediocre Lakers

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
It's amazing how bad the Lakers are. For all the crap I give the Hinkie devotees, the Lakers might be an even better example of why tanking doesn't always work, and at least Hinkie went and flipped and flipped to get a bunch of extra picks. Obviously Russell/Randle/Ingram are very young, and sure maybe George and Davis end up forcing their way to LA but man, they are terrible. Like, I want to say I hope lotto karma punishes them and their pick goes to the Sixers, but I'm not sure they are actually tanking, they are just this bad.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
The Lakers aren't even in a position to tank. All their players are young and developing.
Yeah, they decided to run up the red flag and send the adults home in hopes that the kids develop. And the kids really are that bad. They should have been cashing in these high picks on NBA players rather than hoarding them.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Yeah, I should have also added, I'm just not seeing Russell/Randle/Ingram as even a poor man's Durant/Westbrook/Harden right now. If those guys don't have really big steps up, that's not going to be a good team for a while. (again, unless half the "all-star only wants to go to LA" rumors are true)
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Does Randle really have much projection left? He's only 22 and did miss a season so I guess. He'd probably look better on a team with actual talent and is more than acceptable for a 7th pick. Good rebounder, improving passer, but limited by lack of a 3 point shot. Russell and Ingram you'd want more out of. Russell for some reason was replaced by Clarkson in the starting lineup.

Zubac looks like he might be able to play too, so maybe they get lucky with one of their non lottery picks.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I'd probably take Marcus Smart over anyone on the Lakers, never mind Jaylen Brown. Ingram is the only one who would give me pause because of his upside and recent performance but he's always been a terrible FT shooter and his range he showed in college (80-195) hasn't translated to the pros. Right now, he's just the shooting version of Marcus Smart without the rest of Smart's game. Russell either stagnated or regressed this year, but he's still 21 himself. If Randle adds a 3 point shot, he becomes interesting but right now he's a poor man's Zack Randolph with better passing skills. Maybe a less athletic, less offensively gifted Blake Griffin. Seems like a guy who could have some 15/10/5 seasons on 50% shooting in the right situation where most of his offense is putbacks. If he adds the 3, he becomes a borderline all star given his rebounding and passing skills.
 
Last edited:

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
4,810
While the Lakers are a not-good/bad team, they were 15-26 halfway through the season and have been 1-11 over their last 12. There is a perception that they are tanking and the sports media is talking about it openly -- with some saying that tanking is exactly what they should be doing.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Well, Lou Williams was their best player by almost any metric (basic box score or advanced). Is he good enough to make up that difference? Probably not. But combined with a little luck evening out (the Lakers have been the second worst team by points for most of the season) and a little less desire to fight for every win? Sure.

Celtics are pretty lucky with the Lin injury, I honestly think the Lakers right now are worse than the Nets. (of course that "luck" can evaporate with ping pong balls) But, I do think it's a little crazy Brook Lopez is still on this team. I realize they have no incentive to be worse, and they need to sell some tickets, but flipping him for some picks seems like a complete no brainer, even if they aren't lotto picks. Going to have to actually rebuild sometime.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
While the Lakers are a not-good/bad team, they were 15-26 halfway through the season and have been 1-11 over their last 12. There is a perception that they are tanking and the sports media is talking about it openly -- with some saying that tanking is exactly what they should be doing.
It isn't a "perception" that they are tanking. They traded Lou Williams and have shut down healthy veterans Deng and Mozgov. Their most used 5-man unit (over 400 min) includes the latter two which is actually a positive +/- unit. The second most used includes Williams and also +. The Laker issues are youth, particularly crappy youth, and zero depth.

Keep an eye on Zubac. He was teammates last year with Ante Zizic and is the other big I wanted us to draft last year over Yabu. Big, active and still a pup.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,090
I sat like 5 seats away from Zubac at the draft last year. He literally looked like he was 15 but was a big dude. Looks to be on his way to a nice NBA career.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I sat like 5 seats away from Zubac at the draft last year. He literally looked like he was 15 but was a big dude. Looks to be on his way to a nice NBA career.
I loved both of the Big Z's and was a proponent for us drafting them both. Their size and career paths are similar at a young age although Zizic has better ball skills so watching Zubac play this year combined with Zizic's meteoric rise from last winter can give us a real good idea of what to expect out of Zizic next season. I feel he's an immediate rotation contributor for us in '17-'18 with the potential to be so much more by seasons end and beyond. He has excellent mechanics from the FT line to develop as a perimeter shooter/high post facilitator in the Horford mold too.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I split this because it's really separate from the Nets thing. Although the Lakers look like they will again be competition for the most ping ping balls next year.

I'm pretty amazed at this situation. I have to be honest, I never thought the Lakers would be bad. The preferred destination status (not just FA, but getting a guy like Kobe to fuck over his draft status saying he would only play for the Lakers, no matter how exaggerated that story is), the generally excellent management over the years. But they have been truly awful. Since moving to LA, the Lakers have had 4 full seasons with less than 40 wins, and never less than 33...until 2013, where they have since won 27, 21, 17, and 20 (with 13 to go). And the problem they have, unlike the Sixers, is that their struggles aren't because their young guys haven't played, it's because they haven't played especially well.

I will admit that as a lifelong Celtics fan first and Laker hater second, I was happy when Stern put the kibosh on the Chris Paul trade, but I'm really surprised at what's gone down since then.

Obviously, their fortunes can turn quickly, they're still the Lakers and just by making this post I wonder if I'm guaranteeing them a fabulous off-season and 60 wins next year. I just wonder if it's going to be harder even for them with the new CBA than it has been. In previous years, we may have seen Paul George already traded to them. Nowadays I think GMs have a better sense that they can keep their stars just by paying them.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,090
I think you're right. The new CBA is going to result in fewer elite FAs hitting the open market, where the Lakers clearly have an advantage (or used to). Russell, Ingram, and Randle all look like solid NBA players but I don't really see a superstar in that bunch. Randle certainly not. Ingram and Russell still have time but are currently light years away. No FA who's in his prime, like a George, is going to go there now if winning is the priority. And even if you added George to this team for free, you're looking at a team that would struggle to make the playoffs in a tough western conference. This team desperately needs to keep their 2017 pick. Their assets just currently aren't sufficient.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
Oh how I hope they stay bad for a long time. Just a few more years and every FA will not always dream of being a Laker. How much did 5 years of bad Kobe not letting them acquire or driving away talent is to blame?
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,530
I split this because it's really separate from the Nets thing. Although the Lakers look like they will again be competition for the most ping ping balls next year.

I'm pretty amazed at this situation. I have to be honest, I never thought the Lakers would be bad. The preferred destination status (not just FA, but getting a guy like Kobe to fuck over his draft status saying he would only play for the Lakers, no matter how exaggerated that story is), the generally excellent management over the years. But they have been truly awful. Since moving to LA, the Lakers have had 4 full seasons with less than 40 wins, and never less than 33...until 2013, where they have since won 27, 21, 17, and 20 (with 13 to go). And the problem they have, unlike the Sixers, is that their struggles aren't because their young guys haven't played, it's because they haven't played especially well.

I will admit that as a lifelong Celtics fan first and Laker hater second, I was happy when Stern put the kibosh on the Chris Paul trade, but I'm really surprised at what's gone down since then.

Obviously, their fortunes can turn quickly, they're still the Lakers and just by making this post I wonder if I'm guaranteeing them a fabulous off-season and 60 wins next year. I just wonder if it's going to be harder even for them with the new CBA than it has been. In previous years, we may have seen Paul George already traded to them. Nowadays I think GMs have a better sense that they can keep their stars just by paying them.
If they don't give it to the Sixers this year, it's 100% unprotected next year. I'm not sure why they're tanking so hard right now unless they envision getting significantly better in the offseason.

2017 first round draft pick to Philadelphia
L.A. Lakers' 1st round pick to Philadelphia (via Phoenix) protected for selections 1-3 in 2017 and unprotected in 2018 [L.A. Lakers-Phoenix, 7/11/2012; Milwaukee-Philadelphia-Phoenix, 2/19/2015]
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Yeah, the biggest side effect of the Chris Paul kibosh (other than the Lakers not getting one of the best players in the league of course) was the awful Steve Nash trade.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
If they don't give it to the Sixers this year, it's 100% unprotected next year. I'm not sure why they're tanking so hard right now unless they envision getting significantly better in the offseason.
I think they envision getting significantly better in the offseason. Or at least, there's a chance. Brandon Ingram leads the team in minutes, and can be expected to improve. They have two promising starters in Russell and Randle. Nance is a good energy guy, and Jordan Clarkson once looked like a rotation player. I can see if you squint that they'll have a shot to improve.

Plus, if you think this draft is mostly can't miss, it can't hurt to try.
 

deanx0

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2004
2,506
Orlando, FL
If they don't give it to the Sixers this year, it's 100% unprotected next year. I'm not sure why they're tanking so hard right now unless they envision getting significantly better in the offseason.

2017 first round draft pick to Philadelphia
L.A. Lakers' 1st round pick to Philadelphia (via Phoenix) protected for selections 1-3 in 2017 and unprotected in 2018 [L.A. Lakers-Phoenix, 7/11/2012; Milwaukee-Philadelphia-Phoenix, 2/19/2015]
Listing to the Lowe post with Simmons, apparently if they convey their pick this year to Philly, they then have to convey their 19 pick to Orlando, but if the pick this year rolls to next season, the Orlando obligation becomes two second rounders. So getting a Top 3 prospect in a loaded draft and keeping your first rounder in 19 probably outweighs the unprotected pick next year, particularly if the Lakers think they'll be better next year
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
yes it's the orlando pick that makes it easy to tank.
I'm sure they expect to get better next year, maybe they will but I have been significantly negatively surprised by ingram and Russell is up and down, 40 points follow a game of more fouls and turnovers than points.
The Mozgov and Deng signings are awful.
If they get say Ball this year is he really going to make them good? Who would sign there? Sure the Year after, they have cap space and will push for George etc, but next year I'd wager they'll still be bad.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,530
Listing to the Lowe post with Simmons, apparently if they convey their pick this year to Philly, they then have to convey their 19 pick to Orlando, but if the pick this year rolls to next season, the Orlando obligation becomes two second rounders. So getting a Top 3 prospect in a loaded draft and keeping your first rounder in 19 probably outweighs the unprotected pick next year, particularly if the Lakers think they'll be better next year
Interesting, I definitely agree in that case. Thanks!
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,090
Interesting times for the Lakers are ahead. Owe their unprotected 2018 pick to Philly, rumored to be Paul George's preferred landing spot, and now look set to host the Big Baller Brand Circus. Those Deng and Mozgov contracts are looking especially awful now.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
I like ball but think he has major flaws and many are the same as Russell. Limited altheticism and questionable defensively.

If they take ball as everyone expects they will have to wait out George right? They don't have the chips to trade for him now, unless they trade the pick.

Ball, Russell, clarkson back court with no rim protection behind is going to be fun offensively but holy shit cover your eyes defensively. Unless someone makes a huge jump they will still be bad (but no incentive to tank so maybe they... try?).
Next years draft looks as good as this one early and two of the worst teams won't own their own pick!
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
Some talk percolating that the Lakers are looking at Fox...which, for entertainment purposes in regards to Lavar Ball, could be AMAZING.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,090
Some talk percolating that the Lakers are looking at Fox...which, for entertainment purposes in regards to Lavar Ball, could be AMAZING.
I'm sure they are looking. Would be stupid to just look at 1 guy. I'm skeptical that they'd take someone other than Ball but the Lakers taking Fox over Ball would simply destroy LaVar so I can't help but root for it.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,494
If the Lakers don't take Ball - and they shouldn't because they need someone who can guard people - and if the 76ers pass, I wonder how far Ball slips. I mean he's not working out for other teams and the top part of the draft has some good options, so I wonder what would be the next logical landing spot.

If the Lakers do take Ball, I suspect Philly is going to get another high lottery pick next year. And the Lakers will not have much to show after picking 6, 2, 2, and 2 in consecutive years.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,229
If the Lakers don't take Ball - and they shouldn't because they need someone who can guard people - and if the 76ers pass, I wonder how far Ball slips. I mean he's not working out for other teams and the top part of the draft has some good options, so I wonder what would be the next logical landing spot.
Isn't the obvious answer to this question the Knicks?
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,494
Isn't the obvious answer to this question the Knicks?
Are you assuming that the Knicks junk the triangle? I'm not a triangle expert but it seems to me that Ball would be a terrible fit for the triangle for a few reasons: (i) it's 180 degrees from the pace and space that UCLA played this year; (ii) the triangle deemphasizes the three ball and emphasizes a mid-range game, which does not play to Ball's strengths, and (iii) the triangle gets the ball out of the hands of the PG early in the shot clock so Ball will have to learn to play off the ball.

Also, the Knicks defense was terrible last year and adding Ball won't help there.

To me, Monk would be a way better fit for the triangle than Ball.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
If the Lakers don't take Ball - and they shouldn't because they need someone who can guard people - and if the 76ers pass, I wonder how far Ball slips. I mean he's not working out for other teams and the top part of the draft has some good options, so I wonder what would be the next logical landing spot.
If the Lakers pass, isn't Lonzo destined to be a King? And really, have a player and franchise deserved each other more?
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
Lonzo isn't falling very far, if at all. All year long, he and Fultz were considered locks to be the top 2. One bad game in the tournament isn't going to change much, especially considering how great he looked the previous game.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,229
Are you assuming that the Knicks junk the triangle? I'm not a triangle expert but it seems to me that Ball would be a terrible fit for the triangle for a few reasons: (i) it's 180 degrees from the pace and space that UCLA played this year; (ii) the triangle deemphasizes the three ball and emphasizes a mid-range game, which does not play to Ball's strengths, and (iii) the triangle gets the ball out of the hands of the PG early in the shot clock so Ball will have to learn to play off the ball.

Also, the Knicks defense was terrible last year and adding Ball won't help there.

To me, Monk would be a way better fit for the triangle than Ball.
I'm assuming the only thing that would be close to a Ball-with-the-Lakers circus would be a Ball-with-the-Knicks circus.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
Lonzo isn't falling very far, if at all. All year long, he and Fultz were considered locks to be the top 2. One bad game in the tournament isn't going to change much, especially considering how great he looked the previous game.
The trashing of Ball here is pure silliness, part of having a target on his back due to his dad etc. But he's a top 2 guy in the draft, the fit is perfect with the Lakers, and his getting trashed is just what happens to top guys -- by analogy to the recent NFL draft, sure, Myles Garrett didn't give full effort and, yeah, Mitch Trubitsky is a 2nd rounder etc etc. At the end of the day they went 1/2 for good reason, just as Fultz and Ball will, even though Garrett had his detractors.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,090
The trashing of Ball here is pure silliness, part of having a target on his back due to his dad etc. But he's a top 2 guy in the draft, the fit is perfect with the Lakers, and his getting trashed is just what happens to top guys -- by analogy to the recent NFL draft, sure, Myles Garrett didn't give full effort and, yeah, Mitch Trubitsky is a 2nd rounder etc etc. At the end of the day they went 1/2 for good reason, just as Fultz and Ball will, even though Garrett had his detractors.
How do you define "trashing"? I don't see much of that here. For me, I think he's a top 3 talent but would enjoy the spectacle of a hypothetical slide. Before the Celtics won the lottery, the consensus on this board was that picks 2-4 (maybe now 5 if you're a Fox believer) were basically interchangeable.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
Well, speculation that he fall to 5/Kings or 8/Knicks is pretty silly, but you're right that maybe that's not really so much a "trashing" as an exaggerated downgrade. In the draft thread here are a few quotes taken from just one page of the thread

I think there is basically a tier 1 (fultz) and then a lot of debate after. Some are 100% sold on ball and others not so much.
....
The more I think about Lonzo the more I think of him just getting destroyed by Fox. It isn't like the NBA is short on lightning-fast guards who can get to the rim. If the concerns about him being able to get his shot off at the professional level turn out to be real, we are not talking about a future star. That isn't even taking into account the LaVar baggage.
Fox has caught Ball in a lot of places, so either he's also in Tier 1 or Ball is sliding out of it.
...
Ball is sliding out of it.
He can't dribble and he can't run a pick and roll. Also can only shoot going left
Fox needs to learn to shoot. Ball needs to learn to dribble.
.
Again, maybe "trashing" was too strong a characterization...but "needs to learn to dribble" - hello? That's pretty over the top....

edit: p.s. -- i agree i'd enjoy his slide, too. Not because I have anything against him, but while until now I thought his dad was entertaining and irrelevant, the back and forth with Leahy was pretty obnoxious. Not that the sins of the father should....
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
Finding Lonzo Ball's true NBA destiny

Tjarks: I think the perfect fit for Lonzo — at least when it comes to matters on the court — is actually no. 3 to Philly, where he could play off of Joel Embiid and Ben Simmons. That team would be amazing. The great thing about using him in a complementary role in the offense is he can shoot the ball from way behind the 3-point line, really stretching out the defense. He also doesn’t need the ball in his hands much to significantly boost a team’s ball movement. He had a usage rate of only 18.1 at UCLA this season (Markelle Fultz, in comparison, had a usage rate of 31.4), and Ball really empowered secondary ball handlers like Bryce Alford and Aaron Holiday. The ball doesn’t stick with Lonzo — he was either taking the shot or moving it within a couple of seconds — and that had a contagious effect on the rest of the team.
O'Connor: I get the impression that a lot of people don’t believe Lonzo is the type of player you described, though. They say that Simmons will function as a point guard, so the Sixers don’t need another one. But the reality is, as you said, the rock doesn’t stick in Ball’s hands — and the Sixers run a system that values having multiple ball handlers, making him a good fit next to the ball-pounding Simmons. Drafting Lonzo might not be an easy sell for Sixers fans, which begs the question: Has his game been misconstrued?
Tjarks: I think the biggest problem with people’s view of Lonzo is they peg him as a ball-dominant guard in a spread pick-and-roll offense, and that’s not really his game. He’s not a great athlete in comparison to the classic drive-and-dish point guards and he wasn’t involved in that many ball screens at UCLA. Lonzo, to me, is more of a shooting guard who can stretch a defense out to 28-plus feet, grab boards, push the pace himself, and then take advantage of ball movement created by another point guard.
O'Connor: Ball lacks shake as a ball handler, and his turbo button ain’t working. It looks like he’s about to blow by the defender, but he ends up going nowhere and flings out a pass instead of attempting what would’ve been an open layup for De’Aaron Fox. Breaking down a defender and getting a bucket isn’t Ball’s game.

Ball is often likened to Jason Kidd, and even Magic Johnson. Maybe he will be that player, because you can never say never with someone as talented as a passer as Ball is. But the comparison is too lofty. An executive I chatted with couldn’t take the Kidd comp seriously, and he wouldn’t go any further than the “Shaun Livingston with a 3-pointer” comp I tossed at him.
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,548
KPWT
I agree that Fox is probably a better fit than trying to mash Russell and Ball together, but the decision is a tough one because Ball is almost certainly going to be a better player than Fox. Fox's ceiling is " left handed 80% version of John Wall" and that assumes he can ever get above 200lbs and can develop a jump shot. That would put Russell at the 2 permanently and put Clarkson on the bench where he belongs. Until, and if, Fox can put on weight, they still would be a defensively suspect set of guards.

Ball seems to have a similar profile as Russell (great passer, good shooter, long, but not terribly athletic and on the slow footed side) and appears redundant or hard to fit together. But having two players with great range and natural passing ability to grow up together might be a very good problem to have. I just don't know if we have seen something like that mix of players. Add Ingram to that mix and you have three payers who are very good potential scorers and passers and all a best case of "average" or "acceptable" on the defensive end. It seems like Lonzo/Russell/Ingram can only work if Randall gets better at rebounding and they find someone to protect the rim. They would need a DeAndre Jordan type player much more than a Paul George if the kids all grow up right.

Or course we might all just be seriously underrating Zubac. Or maybe Phil feels bad about the way things ended with Jeanie and might trade Porzingis for the pick.


If the Lakers do take Ball, I suspect Philly is going to get another high lottery pick next year. And the Lakers will not have much to show after picking 6, 2, 2, and 2 in consecutive years.
How do you call just turned 21 Russell and just turned 20 Ingram "not much to show"?

Darrius Soriano runs the best Lakers blog out here has this great article on Russell, and here is the gist of it:
http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2017/05/18/dont-fool-yourself-dangelo-russell-is-not-expendable/
Russell is not a good defender at this stage (though he made strides this past season and was not as bad as his general reputation would lead you to believe), but he is a good shooter and a very good passer. So, Russell checks off two of those three boxes.

Now, consider, this past season there were only eight players in the NBA who shot at least 35% on six or more 3 point field goal attempts per game while also tallying more than 4.5 assists per night with an assist percentage of 25% or higher. They’re names you’ll know quite well:

  • Steph Curry
  • Isaiah Thomas
  • Damian Lillard
  • Kyle Lowry
  • Mike Conley
  • Kyrie Irving
  • Kemba Walker
  • D’Angelo Russell
Besides Russell, Kyrie is the youngest player on that list and he’s a full 4 years older than Russell at 25 years old. Lillard is the least “experienced” player on this list, with this past year being his 5th season in the NBA. Russell just completed his 2nd season. In fact, if you search for players who have posted those stats in their 1st or 2nd seasons, only 4 players in history have done it: Lillard, Russell, Damon Stoudemire, and Van Exel (all of whom were at least 2 years older than Russell at the time).
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,494
edit: p.s. -- i agree i'd enjoy his slide, too. Not because I have anything against him, but while until now I thought his dad was entertaining and irrelevant, the back and forth with Leahy was pretty obnoxious. Not that the sins of the father should....
I asked the question because Ball has some pretty significant questions and if he's not going to work out for any other team, I wonder whether teams would go for guys on which they have a better handle. Like Philly. So he doesn't work out for Philly. Philly could use Jackson's defensive intensity or Tatum's scoring or Monk's shooting. If thy have questions on Ball, why would they roll the dice on him if they've not been able to work him out?

At any rate, it's just speculation. I'm just glad the Cs don't have to make that decision.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,494
How do you call just turned 21 Russell and just turned 20 Ingram "not much to show"?
Yes they are young but I have my doubts whether a Randle / Russell / Ingram / Ball core is ever a championship contender. My point is that teams who pick that high would like to get one guy who's probably going to turn into a multi-year All-Star and the jury is still out whether the Lakers have gotten one. Not saying it's the Lakers fault or that they made any mistakes but part of the problem when trying to rebuild through the draft is that sometimes the draft doesn't yield much..
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
Again, maybe "trashing" was too strong a characterization...but "needs to learn to dribble" - hello? That's pretty over the top....
It's as over the top as calling those quoted posts "trashing".
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,548
KPWT
Yes they are young but I have my doubts whether a Randle / Russell / Ingram / Ball core is ever a championship contender. My point is that teams who pick that high would like to get one guy who's probably going to turn into a multi-year All-Star and the jury is still out whether the Lakers have gotten one. Not saying it's the Lakers fault or that they made any mistakes but part of the problem when trying to rebuild through the draft is that sometimes the draft doesn't yield much..
I think the signs point to Russel being a multi time all star considering the skills he has shown in two seasons, as referenced in the post above. I think he is going to be a star if he continues to develop and Walton can keep him focused.

We don't have enough info to go off of with Ingram, but I am not sure what else could have been asked of his 19 year old first year. The flashes were certainly there and his ceiling will be set by the two things NBA players most commonly fix, strength/weight and jump shooting. The rest is there now.

I don't think Randall's "poor man's Draymond" ceiling is ever going to get him on to an all star team, but if he gets tougher and develops more range he might be a pretty useful 4 on a contender. He is the only one that has not progressed on curve, but that is mostly due to the lost year with the broken leg.

The bad contracts and that General feeling of impatience is what Laker fans have to regret, not picking the kids or their progress to date.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
Well, speculation that he fall to 5/Kings or 8/Knicks is pretty silly, but you're right that maybe that's not really so much a "trashing" as an exaggerated downgrade. In the draft thread here are a few quotes taken from just one page of the thread









Again, maybe "trashing" was too strong a characterization...but "needs to learn to dribble" - hello? That's pretty over the top....

edit: p.s. -- i agree i'd enjoy his slide, too. Not because I have anything against him, but while until now I thought his dad was entertaining and irrelevant, the back and forth with Leahy was pretty obnoxious. Not that the sins of the father should....
Would you like to dispute that he has a bad handle, especially for a leading guard?
It's not a secret. Just watch any tape.

His floor is relatively high but I don't see him as a primary initiator of an offense. Anot excellent second option that improves passing through the team? Sure

If ball can get a good handle he's going to improve. If fox can shoot, and some people say his form is fine, so is he. Jackson with a shot is elite.
Point being they all have questions. Ball as many as any in the second tier
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
I think Magic has gotta make a big move this summer. I can't imagine them going into the year with an entire starting unit of under 23 year olds.

My guess - Ingram + '17 pick + Deng for Paul George
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
Why not? It seems to me Magic and Co. are coming into this at just the right time -- the previous regime, as pathetic as they were, did part of the rebuild. Shouldn't they let all those kids play/develop a full year without expectations of winning and then go into the next off-season with a lot of cash/space to acquire George and....? They can then spend their money, of which they'll have plenty, with a better sense of how this collection of barely 20 year-old players is coming together.

(in re Ball: whatever, he has a bit of a high dribble -- quite an exaggeration to call that a bad handle/needs to learn to dribble. He's the consensus #2 guy in what is considered one of the deepest drafts ever. Of course we can agree that "all these guys have questions." That's true every year about every player who is drafted. All the more for a 19 year old. But Ball is not high floor/low ceiling -- he has a very high ceiling as the prototypical new NBA point guard who can initiate an offense, hit 3s, and make all his team-mates better (and happier) with his passing. The comparisons to Jason Kidd seem to me quite apt.)
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,494
The comparisons to Jason Kidd seem to me quite apt.)
I am interested to see how Ball turnns out and I never wish ill on a 19 year old, but the comparisons to Kidd are terrible. Yes, Ball can see the court extremely well - as did Kidd - but Kidd was an uber-athlete from the time he was in tenth grade. He was the strongest, fastest kid on the court who happened to be a gifted passer. Ball is a gifted passer with a jump shot. Comparing Ball to Kidd is kind of like comparing Rubio to Magic because théy both pass the ball well.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
The trashing of Ball here is pure silliness, part of having a target on his back due to his dad etc. But he's a top 2 guy in the draft, the fit is perfect with the Lakers, and his getting trashed is just what happens to top guys ...
I don't think people are trashing Ball, he's just in the draft's second tier, and talent wise those guys are all pretty equal. And before you argue, let me put numbers on these:
  1. Tier 1: Potential top 10 players. Most drafts don't have a prospect that starts out in this tier.
  2. Tier 2: Potential top 40 players (in other words, all stars). This is where most drafts start. 2014 had a bunch of guys in this tier, with the one potential tier 1 guy (Embiid) an injury concern.
  3. Tier 3: Potential top 100 players (i.e. quality starters).
  4. Tier 4: Potential top 200 guys (roleplayers of varying quality).
  5. Tier 5: Depth charges/wildcards. Occasionally you catch lightning in a bottle here, and a tier 5 guy explodes (like Jae Crowder or Lil' Zeke), but mostly this is the complete crapshoot section of the draft.
There are 4-5 guys in that second tier, depending on what you think of Dennis Smith Jr. (there are also guys like Lauri Markkanen, Jon Isaac, and Malik Monk also fall into that tier 2/3 netherland). I'm secure in putting Ball into the second tier (along with Jackson, Tatum, and Fox), but I'd love to see him on the Kings for the comedy factor. Watching the aspiring reality TV star having to see his son toil away in Sacramento would be high comedy.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
I am interested to see how Ball turnns out and I never wish ill on a 19 year old, but the comparisons to Kidd are terrible. Yes, Ball can see the court extremely well - as did Kidd - but Kidd was an uber-athlete from the time he was in tenth grade. He was the strongest, fastest kid on the court who happened to be a gifted passer. Ball is a gifted passer with a jump shot. Comparing Ball to Kidd is kind of like comparing Rubio to Magic because théy both pass the ball well.
I rather like Kevin O'Connor's comparison: Shaun Livingston with a 3-pointer. At least as a place to start. At 19, he's got some growth in his game, while Livingston's career was marred by injury.