too soon to make that call IMHO. If he can hit at least 50% of his free throws this year, I think we could have a transcendent talent on our hands
I would trade Ingram for Kawhi in a second. With that said, obviously the true advantage comes from getting max players FOR FREE. That's how you jump in the table. And I understand why people would prefer to wait a year instead of gutting the entire team, especially knowing that Golden State is going to be too good anyways. If Kawhi wasn't on the block, the Lakers would have easily gutted their core for him. Which would give us a slight chance while jeopardizing the future. I don't think you can compare Ingram and Ball. Ingram had it all... It just didn't translate on the court yet. But it was obvious that eventually he will be at least very good. The length and wingspan, the ball handling, the mindset, the passing... You could see the kid is just young and raw. And even Ingram is by far not a sure thing to be a future Allstar. With Ball the problem is that imo he isn't very raw. He hasn't learned and isn't able to score anything from anywhere. If you are the primary ball handler and can't do anything except passing then that's not going to produce a star. That's going to produce Andre Miller. Not bad, just nothing special. Right now, nothing about Lonzo screams NBA All-star. Absolutely nothing. I'm not saying that he is a bust. I'm saying he isn't a star and isn't looking like a future star.
That's false bro and you know it...we would trade him if it came as a last ditch effort. Meanwhile, you're willingly dumping dude with Deng in a deal for BrAlly f***ing McBeal. Haha That said, Zo and BI are probably our 2 legit untouchables in terms of true potential realized. If it were strictly basketball, then I would make Zo 1A, BI 1B, since Zo seems to be a better defender as of right now. But if you consider all the other factors like Lavar, baby mama drama (a kid isn't something you can just say you'll deal with after practice), rap career, wonky shooting, br(l)ittle balls...then its BI at 1A by a country mile.
Lonzo seems to be a polarizing player. People either love him or hate him. I admit I'm in the love camp. But from a purely objective perspective, no one should dismiss him as only a good passer. Your claim that absolutely nothing about him = all star potential is missing some key observations. His court vision is elite. His rebounding for a PG is already elite. His defense for a rookie PG is already way above average. As several great players have said about him, his feel for the game is elite. If he can get and stay healthy he will be a star player.
I'm just saying it's too early to be declaring anything about Lonzo and we should know that just based on what Ingram has done.
KB24 isn't wrong . As of now , Lonzo has so many weaknesses as a scorer that the odds of him becoming a star are low . He can't hit any type of shots ( at the rim , midrange , FT , 3pter) with decent efficiency . I know he was a rookie and rookies ( especially guards) don't shoot well but still it is worrisome .
Given his history of efficiency I'm mindful, but not that worried. I'm more worried about his health and strength and so far it's clear he's focused on that.
Lonzo's instincts on the court aren't just elite, they're trascendent and unprecedented imo. I've never seen a player with such natural feel for the game. As of right now, I think Ingram, with his phsical tools and skillset, has a clearer path and higher probability of becoming a star. But Lonzo has the potential to become a generational player if he puts everything together. That's how rare I feel his instincts/feel are.
I'm not saying they aren't. But I'm telling you defense and rebounding don't create a star PG. It's just the way it is. PG defense isn't all that valuable because you generally get beat anyways by quick elite guards, nothing you can do. And rebounding is a nice to have but certainly not the main responsibility of a guard. Feel for the game, court vision etc are all great... It all leads to great passing and ballsharing... As I said his passing is amazing but that's not enough to be a star unless you have no glaring deficits in your game. Lonzo has huge holes in his offensive game. The only excuse for his historically bad shooting is that he was a rookie and there is hope because he was efficient in college. So I do expect improvements, just like Ingram was terrible most of his rookie season percentage-wise and made a huge jump in his 2nd season. The problem is that his shooting form will never allow him to be versatile with his shot, shoot from the right side of the court and he will struggle to shoot over defenders even though he is bigger than most PGs and his ft shooting will probably never be great and his midrange game will never be a big part of his game with that shooting motion and he won't be shooting fade aways either posting up smaller guards. These aren't things he can work on. These are things he has probably never done or cared before. I don't know if you can learn this on the fly. To me he needs to be scoring rather close to 20 to become a star and that's on at least acceptable shooting percentages. If he ends up with 18/7/9, I'll take that too on decent efficiency. If not, then that's still good. Just not a star.
i can see both sides. i actually think lonzo has potential to be a really good, game-changing player, even if his shot is just meh. his hoop iq, selflessness, speed, and aggression in combination are just really impactful, particularly on d. kidd was like that. but kidd was strong and could stay on the floor. on the other hand, kidd's inability to be a real scorer in isolation limited his teams when he was the primary star. he was best as an elite glue guy type, which is how i see lonzo. if he could stay upright.
If you think a HOF player like Kidd is Lonzos floor, then it makes no sense to argue with you. Is that you Lavar?
Jason came in a little later than Lonzo, but didnt he have some knee problems as well? The point stands that their games are very similar and Kidd is undoubtedly a star. It's incredibly difficult to project a 19 year old as a Hall of Famer, but you cant build an argument that a certain style of play makes a player a non-star and then admit a similar player is a star.
Well I think I can. This is 2018. Kidd would most definitely NOT be a star today. The game has changed. The league is dominated by 2 way wings and combo guards dominating from the perimeter. Kidd played at a time where it was impossible to get triple doubles and he was getting them more than anybody else in the NBA. Now we have guys averaging triple doubles or be close (LeBron, Harden). Back then point guards were different. Kidds all round game was very unique. No PG was filling the stat sheet like him. Welcome to 2018, where the Irvings, Currys, Lillards, Walls, Westbrooks, Pauls and Mitchells of the world are dominating. This isn't 2005.
If you think a HOF player like Kidd isn't a star based on era, then it makes no sense to argue with you. Post big men arent en vogue right now, so Shaq and Hakeem and Kareem wouldnt be stars either?
