Official Wmc Thread: Um Those Too Many W's! Fix The Tank!

Well, we won last night, and it didn't happen. Byron addressed it. Watching JC last night after the game on TWC, he mentioned that 'Coaches got on us for that, and we don't do that around here.' That said, these guys are fighting for next contracts; it is what it is. I'm not worried about keeping our pick. It will happen. We'll fall to the number 3 spot.

 

That just makes us spoiled fans. Excluding SA, that could be said of most Western teams at some point during the past decade. That doesn't mean those teams have a losing culture.

Unfortunately with the other big personalities gone (Kobe, Nash...Nash isn't really a big personality but he's a vet and a respected leader) and no voice at the point, that makes Swaggy P and Boozer the leaders and voice of our team. That's not a good look. I wouldn't let the acts of a few skew the perception of the team, if the whole team was acting a fool that would be another story. Fortunately I don't factor any of those three into our plans. I expect two of them will be gone and Young will step back into his rightful role and be kept in check by the Mamba. That's another reason why I think it's vital we get a veteran PG and not a rookie PG, whether it's Dragic or a deeply discounted Rondo, the team needs another voice. We can't pin all our hopes for any one task or responsibility on Kobe anymore because we don't know what he'll be able to do or for how long next season.

 

What you're saying is accurate, but let's reframe things a bit. Consistent losing DOES negatively affect some players, and I think Nick, Lin, and Hill are some of those players. But, here's the reframe...only LOSERS are susceptible to the loser attitude/culture. If young Kobe was on a team that went 0-82, he'd be MORE hungry and work harder to be a winner...I speculate. Obviously Kobe is the extreme example, but there is a spectrum of intrinsically being a winner or a loser. I see Clarkson, Ellington, Davis, Randle, and Black as winners that are going to be very resistant to the negative effects of being around such losing. Guys like Lin, Young, Hill, and Wes are losers regardless of the team's success. A losing culture just adds to their loserness. But what about guys that are talented but not really winners yet, don't we want to insulate them from the losing culture? Nope, GTFO! A losing culture may be a blessing because it only infects losers and weeds them out.

 

Ok. Pre-lottery 3rd seed going into the lottery on draft night since 2000: The pick has stayed the same twice. It has moved up 4 times including 3 of those times winning the lottery.

The 4th position has moved up 6 times winning the lottery 1 time in 2012 since 2000.

 

Anytime. Honestly, Real, if our pick falls outside the top 3, I think we're trading it.

 

I completely agree. We need to start winning soon, meaning winning seasons, not winning games right now. I don't worry one bit about our franchise looking like more of a loser because we won 20 wins instead of 25. We're already losers, so might as well keep the pick.

 

I sure as F*** hope not! I could see them trading it, you're right. I just really hope not. Any of the guys in the top 5 are going to likely be very valuable on the court and cost-controlled players.

 

It's not a popular stance and I understand why. No one wants to be upset when their team wins. But if we don't get the pick I will be upset. It is what is at this point for me.

Also, there are a few truths that no one can argue around. First, we aren't good. Second there are only a handful of ways to make a team better - trades, free agency and the draft. Bringing in players through trades is always tough and its never a given that you will be able to sign a big time free agent.

As many have said, the draft is a way to bring in young talent at a low price. Given the state of the team, we need to bring in talent a lot more than we need to beat Utah or whoever in a forgettable game in February. Getting a high pick not only brings in more talent, but it could also help recruit free agents as they will know they won't have to try to win alone.

I would go on, but I will just end it there to not rehash a bunch of points everyone has made before.

Bottom line, we need that pick.

 

Also, I joke around a lot during the game time chats, but I am not upset with the players at all. If anything, I like what I have seen out of several guys especially Clarkson and Boozer.

 

You're right. However, outside of Okafor, everyone in the top 5 are raw and need time too develop, IMO. If we're attempting to pursue Durant in FA, he'd want a ready made team that is going to compete right now...Sure, we'll have possible an up-coming Randle, Top 5 pick, Clarkson, and maybe other budding talent, but will he be that patient? I don't think so when you consider the he's playing with Westbrook and Presti just reloaded that team.

I think we need to build a team around sustainability that Jerry did during the 90's with Van Exel, Ceballos, Campbell, Jones, and had some success before Shaq finally arrived; I do think this is going to be a progressive stage for this franchise to get to the level their accustomed too and make take longer than some of us realize...

 

While I love to win, it's basically for nothing though. Keep losing, get us that high draft pick, then win next season.

 

The problem with keeping Davis is it likely means letting Hill go for nothing, unless we can deal him at the draft. The Lakers really don't have a ton of cap space available if they decide to keep Hill, and if they don't they will likely use a solid chunk of it to bring Ed back. Either way they probably won't have as much cap space as we hoped to chase free agents...going to need to be very selective.

One thing that I haven't seen an answer to yet though: if the Lakers decline Hill's option for next year do they still posses his Bird rights? Meaning could they, in theory, decline the option, then re-sign Hill to a deal after they have chased the free agents they want?

Or would that create a cap hold for his salary anyway?

It's an odd situation. Obviously it would suck to lose another big without any compensation coming back, and if they pick up the option a $9 mil expiring who can play is a solid trade chip...but tying up $9 mil on Hill when Ed can probably be had for less might be tough.

It's going to be one of several big decisions Mitch has to make this offseason, which feels like a lifetime away.

All that said, I was busy at work so couldnt get involved in the epic tank vs. win conversation earlier, but @JSM basically hit the nail on the head on every point I would have made. Tank on!