Yeah this was more my line of thinking. Let Russell do his learning in game. By getting a Lawson it obviously knocks into Russels PT. What confuses me is , what is the Lakers plan? If we're gonna play D'Angelo and let him develop, forget going after any PG's. If we're going to let him watch and learn on the bench, we should already have a starting PG!
I'm still in the camp they'd trade any of Randle, Russell or Clarkson if they could microwave a team together again like the Nash/Howard moves. I just don't think there is any stomach for rebuilding like they did in the 90's. I could easily see them adding Lawson then sending out the youth for Cousins and poof! A credible team again in their minds.
1. I'm glad he went to Houston. If there's a single locker room that could implode under the pressure of Lawson and Howard... Yeah I could see it. Dwight went to Houston in part because of the lack of pressure and the high amount of... night life. I'll be surprised if Lawson gets his head straight (although I'd like him to). 2. The Lakers aren't trading anything of value for Lawson. Houston gave up a bunch of garbage. I'm one million percent positive that the Lakers offered their 3rd string players for Lawson the same that Houston did but Mitch didn't have a 2016 1st to give up and didn't want to keep giving up future picks. I mean at this point it's obvious we're building around the young guys and unless you're getting a bona fide star, why would you trade them? Doesn't make any sense at all. We must have offered something like Kelly, Sacre, some future 2nd and some other future pick. Houston's offer is better. No worries. 3. Maybe this is part of what held up Upshaw's deal signing.
Every year the West sounds scarier than the year before. Meanwhile, the East just plain old mediocre year after year.
I (sadly) don't expect there is a mid-term plan considered by our FO given the 2017 deadline set by Jeanie ( to reach the WCF or is it the WCSF by 2017 ?)
Possible explanation: Just get trade assets, no matter what. If we could have had Lawson for a bag of chips (Kelly, Sacre, Young), then we would have one more "valuable" asset to throw in if we do a bigger trade. The Lakers know its difficult to sign premium FAs in free agency. So collecting trade chips for a blockbuster certainly makes sense.
I agree. I just don't know that this puts them in a vastly different position. Definitely strengthens the West though. Even if Lawson doesn't screw his head on straight off the court, he's a good player. Houston cements themselves in the playoffs with this move.
if you just got traded for garbage and a protected 1st from a team that will win 55 games for the next two years...i'm not sure you're an "asset". everyone seems to be assuming that lawson will stop his downward trend and become a great citizen, simply by changing uniforms. i'm glad the lakers didn't get him, and i'm sort of annoyed they bid.
Eh. The Lakers are trying to dump Kelly and probably Sacre right now to make room on the roster for Upshaw and maybe another guy. If you can dump Kelly and Sacre and maybe another asset or two for a wild card, why wouldn't you? Better than the TPE they're likely to get or the 2nd rounder they're going to have to settle for.
Lawson gives them a playmaker at the 1...organize them on offense...take pressure off Harden...Howard won't be that second option as much. It helps them along with the bars in downtown Houston.
So if we were not able to acquire the services of this gentleman, does this mean we should expect another trade soon? I suppose so, maybe Mitch can use that wand of his and get a decent SF on board. I would call it a very decent off season if that happened. I will kind of miss Kelly though, even if I'm the only Lakers fan to like him
I liked Kelly. I still do, but we probably stunted his growth by trying to make him a SF. He's still a decent prospect to me as a stretch four. I have to think there's someone out there who would take him for a future 2nd or something.
So trade him for a future 2nd because he won't see any playing time here to develop? Otherwise that's a lateral, if not worse move. Because there's no guarantee the 2nd rounder we get is even as good as Kelly.
Trade him and Sacre to make room for Upshaw and others. We don't have much roster space and nobody is looking to help us out by giving back prospects. Kelly's value is probably pretty low for a trade right now and we need to get rid of him. If you get back a 2nd, you should be pretty happy actually. We might need to waive him or Sacre when it's all said and done.
It's true that we are not doing Kelly and Sacre any favor right now, because we simply can't give them enough minutes. I think Upshaw over Sacre is a clear improvement on athleticism alone, not to even mention defense, and Kelly is pretty decent and could get some time on another team that needs a stretch four. But we are not that team right now. Bass and Randle will eat up most of the minutes (and they should), and those 2-3 garbage time minutes will go to Nance. So, where does that leave Kelly? He's talented enough to play in the NBA and we should try to open up a spot... so we need to see if some team is interested in picking him up.
