1. Porzingis had a good rookie season, nothing crazy. He started with zero expectations but was solid. These days people act like Porzongis is an all-time great. Let him confirm his rookie season next year before declaring him great. 2. For every Porzingis there are 10 Tskitishvilis. Chances of Bender becoming a bust is much bigger than him becoming a star. He is all upside and zero substance right now. 3. Say no to Bender. The Lakers shouldn't gamble right now and take the safer bet, even if the ceiling might not be significantly higher.
If we keep the pick and don't take Ingram or Simmons I'm gonna be pissed. There isn't a need to overthink this, Bender shouldn't even be in the conversation. Unless the Sixers take Ingram first and there are some major red flags with Simmons by draft day, nobody else should be considered. If others are though, there are more interesting prospects to me than Bender still, Hield, Dunn, Brown to name a few.
I couldn't agree more with you guys. "The Next Porzingis" is just laughable. Being touted as if Porzingis is on MJ status. I'll take the Next Lebron or the Next Durant in Simmons/Ingram. Any day of the week.
Bender is going to bust so hard... He couldn't perform on one of the worst Maccabi teams in the last 10 - 15 years in a lousy (may be 7 - 8 strength wise in Europe) league.
A suspicion? The first couple posts made me think Sirron was serious...then he continued to ride Bender so hard it became obvious he was trolling. He may have started out thinking it was possible, but then after the first couple posters reacted in shock and disgust (understandably so when suggesting we will pass on Ingram for Bender), Sirron saw an opening to troll...to troll hard.
I'm hurt. I don't follow college much, so I've only caught highlights like many of you. However, my position has mainly been that IF we sign a max FA at SF, and we're keeping Julius at PF, don't be surprised if we shuffle the pick a couple spots to take him or someone else that fits a need. We don't need a max FA at SF and a lottery pick. That makes no sense. If Jim needs to win now, the door is open for all kinds of options. I won't dispute those two are more NBA ready to contribute now, but I have a feeling lots of stuff is going down on draft night. I have a feeling we'll be in the middle of it. I wish FA came first though....hopefully Mitch's people are talking with people behind the scenes to know what they are doing on draft night and in FA. If I "knew" I had a max free agent coming in FA at SF, I flip that pick down a couple spots and get additional assets with it. That's where Bender comes in. I don't think he goes higher than 3.
Even though rumors are floating around about us potentially taking bender, I doubt lakers management will do so, reason number one is, EVERYONE AND I MEAN EVERYONE has Simmons and Ingram as 1a, 1b player (pick). Bender is considered a project and considered by many 3-8 pick. Our fan base needs super star potential and not a project of a player. So it's going to be either Ingram or simmons or a star player trade
sirron, thanks. I didn't know you had a serious streak in you. . Just looking at the clips, if he is there, no contest I would love to have Ingram. If it turned out to be Simmons .... oh well I would just have to suck up my disappointment. I would be really disappointed to not see that pick used in the draft. There's tons of youtube footage on both that doesn't lie. Go with your eye and your gut. Remember the kind of infamous "eye test" made famous by Lets Go Lakers on CL? Well he was right about Clarkson. Most everyone here is thinking these 2 guys are special.
Not everyone. Guys on ESPN Insider have Bender projected ahead of Ingram. Although I do quite enjoy being a contrarian, and know we can't lose either way, I'm definitely not pulling this out of my arse. I think we have to keep the pick this year (Can't trade in advance), so any trades will be announced after the pick if I understand correctly. Just don't be surprised that who we pick initially isn't who we end up with. I humbly accept all apologies in advance of needing them.
That may be. Don't know his sources and don't care really as for affecting my opinion because I only have the clips on all 3 and their reported coverage by the media to go on, but there's a lot out there. Joyously. No offense at all here. This is just me. I feel I have a good eye. Who here doesn't. If you don't .....where's your balls?
Sirron's projections = You have to dare to be great. I'm not getting there going the safe route. Much easier to get a star SF than a Center.
I could see however the need for a tall and skilled center even if having to wait a bit longer, or not?, than on Simmons or Ingram ...... to be able to compete against this new round of skilled and very tall big men showing up. Don't forget Shaq's oldest boy is only 3 or 4 years away. Maker, etc., etc. Small ball might turn out to be a shorter than projected revolution. That will be an impressive call if you're right. Considering the sheer number of balls you have.
What's the last team with a star center to win a title? I will take a max FA and a top pick SF no problem. We currently have no SFs, so getting 2 isn't overkill and doesn't "make no sense", plus we still have money to get a max big and a quality backup big. Star centers just aren't as important as star guards/SFs, and PFs anymore, you can get by with serviceable, plus I don't see star in Bender anyway. Also, with Luke as our coach, we'll be trying to imitate GS, and having versatile players that can play multiple positions is far more important than a supposedly skilled C. Lastly, ESPN analysts are mostly idiots. If we draft Bender we will regret it, he isn't Porzingis, and I'm still glad we took Russ over Porzingis anyway, same as I will be to get Ingram or Simmons over Bender. What an incredible waste of hopefully our last draft pick this high for a long time would be.
Draft picks are more valuable than ever, as will be developing our own D league talent. That's also why I'm ok dropping a spot or two if we still get Bender. Additional future assets.
Weezy, when Bender played in the Croatia championships, he was third in assists as a big. Bigs are still important, but mobile bigs. Especially ones that can pass and shoot from distance to open the floor. And play defense and finish at the rim. And I disagree on your SF take. I think a lottery pick needs to play, so I don't want a lottery pick behind a star playing 38 minutes a night---leaving 10 minutes for development. Just not the best use of that asset to me. I don't think he's PORZINGIS either. They say he's more developed at a younger age than he was. Bender is the youngest guy in the draft. I'm ok signing him to play behind a Bismack type while developing similar to how we handled Bynum.
Why can't our lottery pick play more than that because we sign a star SF? Say we sign Derozan. He can play 2 or 3. Ingram can play 2-4, Simmons can play 3 or 4. In small ball lineups Randle and Nance can play 4 or 5. There's plenty of room for our rookie to play, you can even start Ingram or Simmons at 3, DeRozan at 2, move JC to 6th man, or Lou if JC gets a big contract elsewhere I guess. I'm assuming of course that Young is gone, I'm hoping Brown is gone, and Lou is traded. We have Randle and Nance at PF (Simmons as an option if we draft him), go sign a C (Biyombo, Whiteside, Horford, Ezili), maybe draft a project big to replace Sacre at #32, re-sign Black, we're set on bigs. No thank you to Bender, just please no.
