D'Angelo Russell Discussion: Adopting A Professional Attitude

I'd take it another step further. I would trade D'Angelo only for the Next NBA superstars under 24 years old, under a rookie or RFA contract. There are only a handful. Towns, Irving, Antetokounmpo, A.Davis, and Leonard.

Many folks seem to forget that we have D'Angelo locked up for another 7 years. All our other kids (Nance, JC, Randle, Ingram, Zubac) are also guaranteed to stay for another 4-8 years. Our core is most valuable as a whole, and not as individual pieces. Trading DAR, breaking up our core, and disrupting our timeline would be the equivalent of opening a bottle of Romanee-Conti before it properly ages. There is also the Warriors and Cavs situation --- we aren't winning squat, no matter what we do.

It is way too premature to initiate trade talks. At least let the kids develop for another year or two when we can get fair value back for them.

 

that's not happening.

i'm just not positive that a) the FO is sold on this being a championship-level core and b) that the timeline is long term.

goal can't be championship or bust. i think people have been spoiled by the few cases of contenders being built literally overnight, like boston, miami, and cleveland. the goal needs to be improvement. get to 50 wins, then think about making the jump to championship-level squad. we're at 17.

i agree that value on all but ingram is pretty low right now, so it renders most trade talk moot. but i think people forget the downside of being tied to your 1st rounders: if they DON'T show star potential, you might find yourself in a sunk-cost position. say randle doesn't develop a right hand or a respectable shot or court awareness over the next two years...do you end up letting him walk? or do you pay big money to hope he develops more at that point? it's a tricky game knowing when value is highest. bet sacramento wishes they traded tyreke evans for a solid veteran after his rookie year.

in addition, by the time these guys show themselves as stars (assuming they do), it's probably time to pay them, which might mean you lose the opportunity to snag quality vet FAs to supplement the roster. so, in that case, they better be good enough on their own.

anyway, i don't see it as a black-and-white situation. there are scenarios in which it makes sense to trade part of the young core (again, of a 17-win team). and they, imo, are more extensive than simply "if NO offers anthony davis"--btw, i think i might trade the entire lot for anthony davis. that's how valuable top-level stars are. particularly in la, who would immediately become a FA destination again (remember that?!) if they had just one allstar in the fold.

 

Of course, but that's what it would take imo.

I'd say we have a playoff core at the very least.

Either the timeline is long-term or they're using this season to audition/showcase our kids. In either case, a trade is highly unlikely to happen this year.

I agree, and that's precisely what I'm saying. Let's make it to 50 wins and be a big (star) trade away from a championship. That's the right time to trade. Not now.

That's where you have to stick to your gut. We aren't talking about a core of Marcus Smart, Nik Stauskus, and Anthony Bennett here..... our kids are studs. The odds that none of them pan out are slim to none.

Tyreke and MCW are anomalies. Look back at the past 30 ROY's and 90% of them became HOFer's or allstars. I'd take those odds any day of the week.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Rookie_of_the_Year_Award

That's a good problem to have. We'd have the luxury to start shuffling our pieces.

I don't see any scenario where it makes sense to trade our young core this year. If you could reference an example of a NBA team winning 17 games, built through trades to an eventual championship, please let me know. Because I can not recall an instance. On the other hand, there are many contending teams that are built through the draft. And those teams stick around for a looooong time (spurs and gsw)

Bottom line is that the risk of trading now is much higher than the risk of all our kids turning out to be busts. I am enamored by the thought of creating a dynasty. We have a legitimate shot with our kids (and maybe a trade down the line) Let's not screw it up. We haven't even allowed the wheels to start turning yet.......

 

eh, what's panning out? you mention gs and the spurs--each had their guys develop into perennial allstars or even superstars. i'm highly dubious on randle and clarkson getting to that level, and i think you have to be banking on the high side for russell and ingram. possible, but for most superstars it was obvious from the start.

but we don't have a ROY. we have a second team all rookie guy and someone who is probably not going to be the ROY in ingram.

those are odd criteria...but i can name teams whose centerpiece player or players were acquired via FA or trade: miami 2006 (shaq), lakers 2000-2002 (shaq), detroit 2004 (almost all of them). miami and boston's recent teams. the list goes on.

now, if you want to argue that many championship teams are built around superstars they drafted, i can't argue this. but then you have to be saying that the lakers have drafted a superstar. i don't see it. hope i'm wrong.

disagree. if anything, trading for a current allstar carries almost no risk. plus, "risk" is a strange concept for a bottom dweller. what are we risking? more failure?

i think this must be our central disagreement: you think we have a dynastic core in place. i really don't. but i see you're predicting 45 wins next year, and i would also think that's way out of range. i hope you're right on all these counts.

 

It isn't that black or white. None of them need to become superstars. If the sum of our parts equate to a 50+ win team (which I think is our absolute floor) down the line, we are good. At that point, we will be loaded with assets that are tradeable.

You brought up Tyreke as a case-study. I was simply making an observation.

It is not an odd criteria at all.... We are discussing if it is a good idea to trade our best young asset, in our 17-win state, for a superstar on an expiring contract. I am arguing that it probably isn't a successful formula and it seems that history agrees with me.

As for the teams you mentioned, all those teams either 1) had an established allstar player(s) on their roster or 2) were Playoff teams when they made the trade. Neither describes our team, and it only validates my point that a trade is premature in our current state.

We'll just have to disagree here. Trading for a current allstar and losing our core carries the risk of a sustained period of mediocrity and putting our all our cards in making a huge splash down the line. Think 2004-2007 Lakers and the type of miracle the Pau trade actually was.

I admit the 45 win prediction is pure fanboy optimism, but objectively speaking, I do think our floor is 50+ wins and our ceiling is a dynasty with our current core. Do you disagree with that?

 

"disagree. if anything, trading for a current allstar carries almost no risk. plus, "risk" is a strange concept for a bottom dweller. what are we risking? more failure?"

Disagree with this line of thinking with the 17 wins and bottom dweller argument as it leaves out the fact that this guy below was the sole and complete reason last year's team with lesser and younger players than assembled on this year's squad .....did not win 30 games. Luke IMO would have won 30 games.

 

Still predicting 50 baby! the improving core, Coach Luke and Jessy plus Ingram, Zubac, Deng, Mozgov and Calderon are worth 33 more wins. B0ron brings about 70 losses by himself, our players overachieved when they squeezed 5 wins out of the septic tank that is B0ron.

 

No there aren't. Why would the Lakers make a trade for a second tier player who isn't gonna put them over the top while also losing their best young players in the process? Yeah we may be more attractive in free agency, but with Deng and Mosgov on the books it's not like we're gonna be able to add two or three superstars in free agency. That's what it would take to beat the Warriors so what's the point? Trade Russell or Ingram to get a second tier star and probably still be only a mediocre team? That makes zero sense especially since we're talking about two young players with clear superstar potential. How do you know what the front office is thinking? If they weren't convinced this core is good enough they'd trade them all in a desperate move just like all these radio heads are saying they should.

 

Really? Did you forget about Steph Curry, Dirk, or Nash? Even so it's pretty obvious watching both Ingram and Russell that they have star potential. One looks like he's only a year or two away from being an All Star and while the other needs some time it's clear he has the tools to get there and it's only a matter of bulking up a bit and gaining more experience.

 

*sigh*

you named exceptions, do you want the list that constitutes the rule? i don't think you do.

and realdeal answered the rest for me.

i think people are overestimating the youth and underestimating westbrook. i don't have time for multi-page debates about it, though. i'm pretty sure management will listen to ANY offer that involves current allstars under the age of 30, and i understand why. you can wait for russell to be maybe as impactful as lillard, or you can trade him for someone who is as impactful as lillard today. how is the former a quicker path to contention? makes no sense to me. if nobody offers a young allstar, then you don't trade.

 

No way without under the table signed, whatever ..... commitment from him to stay. You can't take the gamble otherwise. Situations change, people could get hurt on our roster and then maybe Russ thinks he gotta do what's best for him and goes elsewhere. Now what. My example's not an unforeseeable possibility, why I feel it's got to be in blood somehow he's staying for the long haul. IMHO.

 

I'd trade Russell & Randle for Westbrook any day.. Not even a discussion.

 

Westbrook will be 28 in November. And he moves like pre-injury Rose, with a game dependant solely on athletism. Keeping that in mind, I think the question boils down to:

Would you rather have a Cavs-lite roster or Warriors-lite roster in 2020? A 50+ win team with a 32 year old Westbrook and 23 year old Ingram, or a 50+ win team filled with young studs that runs a team-oriented offense, ready to compete for a decade?

I'd take the Warriors-lite situation and it's not even close.