That's where I am at. We need some big time talent period. Let's get some good players on this team and go from there.
We've had too many wrong fits for me to be happy with adding Love or Rondo (LMA, I'm ok with). With Love, we're undersized somewhere and have at least one player out of position. Bigger issue for me is the injuries. We just ended the Nash era, can't afford to pay for a name. A lot of them are freak injuries, but Love is hurt every other month and the back may be a long term nagging injury. Paying that much money for a player who is becoming a magnet for injuries is piss poor GMing. The older he gets...he's not going to get any healthier that's for damn sure. Rondo: where to begin. if I'm a GM or a coach, I don't look at him as a starting PG anymore. His downward spiral was that bad. His attitude is awful. He's not a good mentor. A polarizing leader. Gets bored and loses interest in the regular season. And he misses more FTS than any PG should. So to me, he's a defensive specialist you bring off the bench to guard whatever guard is lighting you up. Problem with that is hell want a bigger payday than that of a role player of the bench. And his ego will never accept that role in a million years. That's a surefire way to bring the whole team down with this sinking ship. And I don't want that attitude anywhere near our young guys.
@trodgers yeah, I brought up the Hill scenario to Atlanta a little while ago. I think he's a damn good fit there. He gives them everything they need off the bench that Pero doesn't. They would still need a starting big of Paul bolts though. And that's a lot of coin for a backup.
This is exactly how I feel, except I'm not sure about LMA's age, not that he's coming anyway, IMO. I don't know why people are so willing to throw money at players who aren't great fits just to improve a little bit. It's like Mitch said, why blow a ton of money on someone who might mortgage the future to get to 40 wins? I think we are spoiled here in that our rebuilds are typically a year or two, but the new CBA makes it extremely difficult to turn around quickly. We have only really had 2 bad seasons. The Dwightmare season did see us play better than any team in the second half of the year, and if Kobe didn't go down, it may have been a different story in the playoffs. We found what seems to be a gem in Clarkson. To sign a pg to huge dollars at this point negates the value and fortune of finding that gem. We have a potential stud at pf. To sign Love or LMA negates some of his value, unless you believe Randle can excel at small forward. I would not be upset with LMA or Love, but I'd rather not spend big money on players who occupy positions we have our most promising talent at. But no to Rondo. Even if he offers to pay us to play here, I don't want him anywhere NEAR this team. Clarkson is a better player, has a better attitude, is less injury prone and was never a C bag.
Another point, Pop has been saying for years that when Duncan retires, he'll follow. If there's no Duncan or Pop, I don't see what's so appealing about the Spurs. Don't get me wrong I think they'll build a contender again with Kawhi, but I wouldn't bet on it happening while LMA is in his prime.
Mitch: "We'll be active participants in free agency." For the last 30 years, the Lakers have built using a combination of all three scenarios to improve our team; the draft, free agency, and trades. We're going to use the same route this off-season and in the future. So, if we see a 'name' that could help us improve next year, while potentially recruiting other free agents the following year (2016), we'reo going to offer max dollars. The debate about what, how, and who we use this money on is always going to be debated, but the model for getting us back on top has historically what the Lakers have done for the last 30 years or so...
Leonard will be there. TP might have a few years left. They have the role players. The system. And a Pop prodigy - those tend to work out rather well.
Am I willing to throw cash at some of the best players in the league? Yep. Absolutely. We have one guy who played well for about half a season and another guy who was hurt the entire year. I like Randle a lot but I wouldn't pass on Love or Aldridge for a guy who hasn't played any real basketball. Maybe I would think twice about it if we are able to draft Towns or Okafor, but even then, I'd probably still grab Love or Aldridge. But hey, I could be wrong. I mean who wants a 6'10 guy who can nail threes and is one of the best rebounders in the game when we can get one of these no name guys that I have to google when you guys mention them. Rondo is a pretty firm no for me at this point, but I've got a feeling there are going to be a lot of unhappy campers around here come July when he is introduced in the press conference holding up his Laker jersey.
LOL! I don't think we're bringing in Rondo, but I agree with the rest of your post. I'm not particularly concerned about Mitch. I tend to trust him. Even going back to last year, he pursued both Carmelo and Lebron just last summer. We'll pursue Aldridge, Love, and any other 'name,' and we'll probably try to move our pick for a more established player. If not, we'll draft BPA, go after the 'name', but if we strike out, we better have a contingency plan for the 2nd tier options right away.
@ElginTheGreat even without Randle, I'd have significant concerns about Love. The injuries alone are enough to scratch him off the list unless he'd play for a non guaranteed deal or for half the price. Neither are happening. That's why I said I could live with LMA. if we go with a name regardless of personnel, he's a much safer bet.
Here's why that doesn't work for me. If we go sign Love what does that say to Randle? We're essentially giving up on him before he plays a full game in the NBA. I'm not against signing Love, I've wanted him here for years and I'd love to see him recruit his fellow UCLA alum RWB. But don't send Randle to the bench, don't try to turn him into a SF, don't try to turn Love into a C. Just trade Randle for a player that actually fits with Love. If he doesn't have the value to bring anything back yet, play Love out of position at C for a while and showcase Randle.
See my other post that included moving Randle around 3/4 and Love 4/5. It doesn't say anything to Randle except, "We want to win."
KEVIN DING@KevinDing · 38m 38 minutes ago Kevin Love's injury has major big-picture ramifications. His potential free agency remains at the forefront of the Lakers' thoughts.
If that's the case, the two probabilities are going after a Koufos and/or drafting a WCS. I like what @LakersN4 said earlier about acquiring a center that could play a Mosgov role in Cleveland and to a similar degree but less impact Jordan on the Clips. 1. Swat 2. Board 3. Finish 4. Hit FT's
Or if we get really lucky, draft Towns. Biyombo, Koufos, whoever. As long as we stick a hard nosed rim protector next to Love we're on the right path to building a winning team.
Love's injuries are definitely cause for concern, but his time in CLE is making me think he's a whiny punk too. "The league will take a look at it, and it better be swift and just," Love said. Oh shut up.
For the Love fans.... Clarkson (.9) / Rondo (6) Kobe (25) / Ellington (Exception) / Brown (.9) Randle (3.1) / Young (5.2) / RHJ (.9) Love (18.9) / Black (.9) / Kelly (1.7) WCS (3.4) / Upshaw (.9) Total - 67.8 million For the LMA fans..... Clarkson (.9) / Rondo (6) Kobe (25) / Ellington (Exception) / Brown (.9) Winslow (3.4) / Young (5.2) / RHJ (.9) Randle (3.1) / Black (.9) / Kelly (1.7) LMA (18.9) / Upshaw (.9) Total - 67.8 million Either way sign me up. I want nothing to do with Love, but I want nothing to do with watching a crappy team anymore either, so I'll just hike my skirt up and accept it. I'm not worried about Rondo as much as others. Much like Dwight, he never wanted to be traded to the team he did, acted like a douche and now has no problems with a team he chose to go to. Hate it or love it, the FO is going to shoot for Love/Rondo/Top 5 pick. The writing has never been clearer on the wall, in fact it's highlighted to make sure it's that apparent.
