Couple of times now ..... above and another post by someone this morning all it mentioned was Lonzo and Kuzma for our top dogs and no mention of BI.
OK, but to bring that other star we'd have to dump 2 of our best players in JC/Randle before the deadline? You're putting all eggs in one basket. That is way too risky and a disaster if we strike out, which can very likely happen. And a bit pipe to be honest. I'm fine with either PG or Boogie while keeping JC/Randle. We'd probably win nearly the same amount of games, and avoid the risk of losing 1/3 of our assets heading into next season.
you dont have to trade jc, just stretch deng contract, randle is little more complicated, i dont think he'll take a paycut n i doubt he waits on mgmt to make a decision after season, he'll probably take the highest offer he can get
It's not pipe it all, it's something completely possible. I'm not saying we're going to sign three max free agents or that we're going to beat the Warriors, everything I mapped out made perfect sense assuming things go our way heading into the trade deadline in February. We're not putting all our eggs in one basket. We'll still have Ball, Kuzma, Nance, and Hart who are all great young prospects. You're just biased towards Randle and that's clouding your judgement of this course of action. It's tough saying goodbye to young assets, but the Cavs traded Wiggins for Love and cashed in. I'll make the same move.
That's the one when Stu was chuckling on air saying "look at Randle, haha". I was even cracking up along with Stu. It was crazy..
He's always been an incredible athlete. The little bit of the game I caught (basically the 4th after the WS game) I was struck by how strong Randle looks. That fat cut really did him a lot of favors.
OK that is 3 times now and at least 2 of them with you, real. Are you assuming, projecting or wanting Ingram gone in pursuit of 2 FAs? Or 3 FAs? Becoming more clear every game that all this bust and sky is falling talk with regards to him was a bunch of impatient panic as per usual around here.
No I just keep forgetting. I do think he's the most likely to be "Wiggins-ed" if there's a trade out there for a better FA, but yes until further notice he's another name to add to the "clearly really good young talent".
Anything is possible. I'm saying the probability is too low to trade 2 of our top 5 players. The same can be said about your bias towards Lebron. The Cavs traded Wiggins AFTER they secured Lebron. You are proposing the complete opposite; a gamble. What's your plan B when Lebron/PG/Boogie signs elsewhere? Resign KCP/Lopez with JC/Randle gone? Sounds like regression to me.
same reason some of us are still annoyed about the russell trade: you do this AFTER you get the big fish, not IN ORDER TO get the big fish.
I'm proposing trading Randle, not every Ingram. Ingram is the Wiggins. I trade Ingram if LeBron is in the bag and we need another star. Randle isn't expendable necessarily, but he's certainly not invaluable. Especially when the potential is to nab a 1st and clear room for LeBron. And I don't have a bias towards LeBron. I have a bias towards the Lakers and making sure we're the best team we can possibly be.
I thought Randle and Kuzma really looked for each other last night... Randle off a no look dish from Kuzma and then Kuzma drifting around the perimeter where Randle found him for a trey. Randle really bullied Leuer. Bounced Bradley off a great pick in the second quarter. Agree with Thomas that he has an "ugly" game. Rushes his free throw attempts. No dribbling to gather himself. Catch then shoot. He did affect the second quarter enabling separation from Detroit.
I don't care how his game, his head or his short arms look. If he is posting 18/10 per 36 while playing D all over the place for the entire season, LeBron can go f*** himself* * I firmly believe that he has only this year left before he breaks down. Same for Westbrook *. I've seen a couple of Westbrook clips with all kinds of shots of him being an a** to his teammates, media and sometimes fans.
Well I guess I fundamentally disagree with you because I'm against throwing away our future core of Julius, Ingram and Clarkson for 1-2 years of semi-competitive basketball. For 2019 and beyond, we'd be better off sticking with our kids and adding either PG or Boogie. A 34 year old player with Lebron's mileage is not worth gutting half our team. We thought Kobe was invincible too, but we quickly learned that you can not beat father time.
i think the conversation has circled back around. you're only giving up the core if you think randle, clarkson, and ingram are foundational type players. most would say the first two have already demonstrated that they're not, and the third hasn't made much of a case yet. honestly, lonzo's done more to impress me in terms of affecting the game than any of them. the reason why i'm always "star or bust" is teams with stars get the other stars. teams without generally get bupkus. so, you can wait and hope for ingram and randle to be stars, or you can just go get proven stars now, who will attract other proven stars, sometimes younger ones. if lebron brought paul george, then when lebron's done, you still have george, who might attract the next guy. again, the rockets just traded a big bag of crap for chris paul. everyone in the league had big bags of crap to offer, but they didn't even get a chance to throw their big bags of crap into the ring.
You're not making much sense there. If we're following the rockets model, we should develop our assets and strike when the right trade comes along. We've got our star in Lonzo already.
Yeah I guess we do fundamentally disagree. I don't think that is our core even remotely. Our core is obviously Lonzo, Ingram, and Kuzma at this stage. It's not really debatable. Julius is off the bench for 20 minutes of the game and Clarkson can basically be replaced with Hart today. And yes if you wouldn't trade Julius Randle for LeBron James, I think that says everything you need to say. No need to keep this conversation going.
