Tank Tank Or Tank Tank Tank?

Interesting. We have such a crowded front court already, though.

What's he projected at? Top 3?

 

I remember Russell diving on the floor for the ball against Houston the first game of the season. LOL!!

I hear you, though. It'd be nice to draft a kid with some moxie. Forget the diva image. So sick of that. Get me a winner.

 

Yeah, trading Lou/Young isn't to tank per se but it certainly helps. I think we end up with bottom 2-3 record regardless.

Whether we like Fultz/Ball/Giles/Jackson or not, plenty of other teams do which means it's a great opportunity to gather some assets.

As a bonus, if we retain this pick, the 1st round picks we owe ORL becomes 2 2nd round picks instead which is infinitely more preferable.

 

His shot has noticeably improved. He also was solid from the 3 point line in the few games I have seen. Not sure how well he fits into our team, but I can see him ending up being a solid pro.

 

If we keep our pick, wonder if Washington would be interested in Russell+Top3+Deng for Wall+1st?

 

Assuming the Lakers can net a 1st round pick in the deal, it is the best move to trade Lou because it frees up playing time for the younger players and obtains another asset for the future (and I've explained the value of a 1st round pick enough where I don't need to beat that dead horse). That the Lakers lose a veteran isn't even remotely an issue to me nor should it to be to the team. The Lakers still have ample veterans outside of Lou and the fact that none of them are as impactful as Lou is irrelevant given the Lakers are terrible with Lou playing well and the future of the team is obviously the young players. It's become such a glaringly obvious point that Kupchak is even saying it publicly. Yeah Calderon, Huertas and MWP could all be gone after the season - I only see Huertas having a chance to return because the team has a cheap team option on him - but it's likely the team just brings in a new set of minimum earning veterans to fill out the back end of the roster. Moz and Deng were paid heavily in part to be veteran leaders and since they aren't earning their keep on the court, the Lakers can at least look to them to earn their keep off it by doing that much.

In addition to that, the Lakers in all likelihood will have to take back a player in any trade for Lou. I don't know which teams are under the cap enough to absorb Lou outright but I'll just safely assume that the type of squad interested in Lou would not be in that situation. I threw out two trade ideas that netted the Lakers two veteran PGs back (Ish Smith and Ramon Sessions). While neither player is as good as Lou on the court, it would address whatever concern one may have about the team getting younger. Any other trade would probably look similar as it's unlikely the Lakers get a good enough return where they get a young talent and a 1st round pick. IF by some miracle that happened, that's an amazing haul and should be welcomed with open arms and with no hesitation over getting younger.

This team is bad. Being really young is a good thing because at least there is an excuse for it and hope for the future. Being bad when you have a mix of solid young talent and several veterans is just a lousy situation to be in.... and that's the Lakers. They need to pick a direction. Ultimately, I just don't see what downside there is to trading Lou and not doing so if you can get a viable return would be a real mistake.

 

The salaries don't match for Cleveland unless they want to rid of Frye or Korver and filer. That's not going to happen. I would assume the only teams that would take an aging, undersized SG would be one in contention, and I'm not seeing any likely suitors.

 

eddieeddie: while i agree that the new cba has elevated the draft even further, i still maintain that piling up higher picks doesn't necessarily lead to winning. most evidence seems to go the other way. drafting lebron, kobe, tim duncan, or dirk nowitzki is the only surefire way to build a contender. worth noting that those weren't situations wherein a team was perennially tanking to get extra shots in the lotto. they were either extreme luck (getting the #1 pick when a surefire hofer was in the draft) or excellent scouting/risk taking (trading an established player or reaching for an unknown at a later draft position).

i just don't think the hinkie way is a path to success.

and if folks aren't happy with russell at pg, i'm not sure why they'd be thrilled at drafting anything but #1 for fultz (who may be less pointguardy than russell, actually).

as for other tank talk, i'll reiterate that in all likelihood, lou williams at 8 per is better for the team than the likely late first to mid-second rounder that lou may return in trade.

 

@abeer3

The Warriors (Curry, Klay, Barnes, Draymond etc) and Thunder (KD, Russ, Ibaka, Adams, Roberson etc) built their teams by stockpiling picks. Yeah it obviously helped that they hit on superstars with Curry/KD but neither was sure fire - given Curry was the #7 pick and KD wasn't the #1 pick - and point is they were draft picks. Other picks on their teams panned out to. This is how you get that elite talent - the draft. Free agency hasn't been and likely won't be the answer. Being a contender is simply all about having talent and the Lakers need to stockpile. The Lakers aren't close to being a contender so they need talent that will be around long-term. Lou, given his age/contract, is not a long-term piece. I've already addressed why trading Lou is not the "Hinkie path", which was all about stockpiling assets with little regard to team construction or the age of the players he was sending out. Hinkie wasn't making common sense moves like dealing an older player like Lou. He was making questionable moves like trading young productive talent like Jrue Holiday and Michael Carter-Williams. That was the "Hinkie path".

Perhaps you are not a fan of Ball or Smith but I am and to me both of them are very solid playmakers and very good options at the PG spot. Along with Fultz. So if the Lakers do keep their top 3 pick, they would definitely land one of these PG prospects - or could look elsewhere like Josh Jackson, Jayson Tatum, Jonathan Isaac etc. In the end, a Top 3 pick will land a very intriguing young prospect and Laker fans should be thrilled about that in general. Lou Williams is more than likely going to be a better player than the mid to late 1st round pick he'd return in a trade would ever be (and probably better overall than the pick + player that comes back, as I explained the Lakers would likely have to take a player back in the deal to match salaries). That's not the point though - the point is that Lou is 30 and due to hit FA after next season, whereas that 1st round pick is a potential long term piece. If having the myopic view of comparing Lou right now versus how good that 1st round pick might be is the way you choose to look at it, then obviously you wouldn't support such a move.

 

I wanted Stanley before we got #2 in the draft lottery. I just checked his stats. Why isn't he getting more playing time?

 

A few weeks ago Johnson had his work ethic questioned by Stan Van Gundy, who also made other comments about him just needing to get better. When Caldwell-Pope, Harris and Marcus Morris are all active, they are eating the majority of the PT at SG/SF and there just isn't much left for Stanley.