Wasn't there a quick rumor about Thibs wanting Deng, or was it just a vet. But hey Thibs, here's Deng so you can run him into his grave quicker.
Good point actually. The point though is I think if you take on Pekovic it's because Minnesota wants to make a run at a FA so they need to clear up the space to get them. Although... if they wanted to Pekovic and Cole Aldridge together equal Deng's contract... Just saying.
I call BS. If either one could be had easily, they'd be gone already. But both of them? C'mon. Where are you going to find two young, above average starters for $10M?
i call "sam smith" on this. i think tons of teams would like to have either, especially russell. i honestly can't believe the national (and laker fan) narrative on that guy in particular. sure he's got flaws, but he's already a legit nba starter at 20 years old. he'd be an upgrade lots of places and is cost-controlled for two years.
I don't think any of our kids could be had easily. The easiest one for other teams to get is probably Clarkson. That doesn't even make much sense. If they could be had easily... for what? Are they easier to be had than a star? Because the Lakers aren't even trading our young guys for anything less than a star or maybe a lottery pick, but even the pick would seem like a lateral move to me. In a lot of ways I'd say those players would be harder to get in a trade than players who are better than them because the Lakers would be selling low and would have to shuffle to make salaries match. That quote makes no sense. Maybe the perception is they're easy to trade for because we've included them in trade discussions for big targets so someone is assuming we're trying to trade them? Just because their names are technically available for an All-Star? But that's not easy to get, that's a high cost. Or maybe this is more rumor floated around to try to weaken our bargaining position for Paul George. If our kids are "easy" targets, that lowers their value. Now we have to offer a bunch of kids and picks in order to get Paul George. I don't think you can play Pelinka that way, but I could see the Pacers trying. They've got to do everything they can to get a return for George and Pelinka is a new GM. They have to test him.
If they gave up Russell AND Randle for PG13 when they can wait a year, I'd be pissed, even if they attached Deng to them. PG13 is not going to be the guy that leads us to prominence anyway. If we get there, it will be on the backs of Russell, Ingram and Ball. (I suppose you could throw Zubac in there) They will all be entering their prime as the Warriors and Cavs are exiting theirs. The reason I want to go after PG13 is to get these kids into the playoffs and start getting them experience in a winning culture. I'm not looking at PG13 as a player to lead us to a ring. He's the guy who teaches the kids how to win, then they collectively lead us to a ring and PG13 collects rings off of them.
Because I'm turning over a new Ryan Leaf. I want to be more understanding of people's feelings and the opinions they share to everyone. It means a lot to me now.
I do want to trade russell for more athletic 3/d type sg if we do mgmt to get george but yea i wouldnt give indy both dlo & randle and we need to make indy take back deng in any deal
Giving up Russell and Randle pre-maturely or unnecessarily to do that? I have another theory. You didn't think your "Like" through well. Besides this dude, Mark J. Rebilas-USA TODAY Sports, is always bad mouthing you. You might want to send him a pic of your arm.
I am in the do not trade DLo category. Trading Dlo would be a redux of OKC getting rid of Harden. Russell has way too much skill set to let go. You need to give him 4 years to see where he ends up. Year 3 is coming up. Randle? If you have to, I'm ok with. Clarkson the same.
I'm with you on D'Angelo, but I'm in the "trade Randle now" camp because I don't know if we can get more for him than right now.
But how can you say that when all these guys that really want to stay Lakers are probably busting their a**** and will be improved, maybe considerably, over the 1st part of the season, up until the deadline when it could be done then. Randle included. The guy hasn't peaked for crissakes. If it "has" to be done then OK, and his value will most likely be higher than it is now. Unless serious injury of course. But you can't think that way about injuries.
Randle is going to come into camp in a lot better shape and with Ball on our team I don't trade Randle until I see if we can make it work and how much he's improved this summer. He's in a contract year this next year too, so the notion that his trade value will never be as high as it is today is just not true IMO.
Very sad to see Randle included in every trade scenario. He's going to surprise a lot of folks this year imo.
he doesn't finish at the rim like harden (or really, get fouled--harden's not a great finisher because he doesn't explode off the floor), but otherwise similar production in a similar game at a similar age. it wouldn't be like trading harden because we're not punting away a chance at a title in the immediate future while doing it. but if the idea is that you're selling off a potential allstar for spare parts, i get it--it's not a great time to move russell. if he's the only piece going out in a trade for a 26-year old allstar, then it's not at all hardenesque, though. as for randle, i still contend he's probably worth more to the lakers than he is on the trade market. i don't think he's wowed the league at this point. might as well ride it out. again, if indy wants him as the centerpiece in a george trade, sure. but that's highly unlikely, imo.
