A quick history lesson on the Lakers' downward spiral

I would be concerned if Scott is still here for the lottery draw. They would likely send him again for luck like last year making it harder to fire him. He needs to be axed following the last game of the season.

Send him out on a "high" note with his worst record in NBA history.

 

the thread's going off track, but I think trading the rights to #3 brings back a lot more than the 5-6 million in FA that you have otherwise.

a pick that high plus another young player might net you a blake griffin (I wouldn't touch melo or rose unless they came for free, btw). I think you only get paul George if he demands out; same with cousins (totally plausible in that case). at any rate, the pick is another chip which would allow the lakers to keep two of their three young guys whilst adding an allstar. without it, I think they're treading water again.

 

Simmons+randle+young for biff.

Russell/vet min
Clarkson/lou
Durant/ Brown
biff/ nance
horford/black

 

tbh, all the Clarkson trade scenarios are basically impossible anyway, so it's really discussion of relative value. you keep mentioning jaylen brown in order to devalue the pick, but other teams are seeing the guy their scout thinks is great at that spot.

picks that high tend to yield pretty good returns, historically.

anyway, the point is that a team that's going nowhere and has an allstar who could theoretically walk in a couple years is going to take a look at a package centered on a high pick and young players. hell, everyone thinks boston is getting every big name on the trade block for bkn's pick (likely worse than la's, if they keep it) and their pupu platter of career role players.

 

I don't think we're that screwed if we don't keep the pick. If we lose the pick....you stretch Nick young's contract, and boom, you just created THREE max slots this summer. Not saying we're gonna sign KD, Derozan and Whiteside....but it does enable us to surround our young talent with pieces going forward. Plus, we don't HAVE to spend all $69M of that money...we can save some of it for the following summer....but for the love of God no more Hibbert/Lou/Bass type of deals. We need to get some guys in this summer and start building an identity.

But yes, keeping the pick would obviously be better in terms of what we can net in trades for disgruntled superstars...of which there will be plenty to choose from this summer (Demarcus Cousins, Paul George if pacers miss the playoffs, Kevin Love if Cavs don't make the finals, Melo, Blake Griffin, etc)

 

Fixing it in philly's favour, and allowing them to get simmons would probably cause them to stop tanking at last, which would be favourable to the league

 

FU bYRON
I'm in the mood for firin'

 

I think you noted the main issue--space for three maxes isn't that valuable when a) most teams have space for one and several will have near two, and b) many teams that have space for one already have an allstar in the fold. I mean, philly has had and will have crazy space, too, but no one thinks they're going to hit a home run in FA.

the pick would be something the lakers have that not every other team does, which you need when your cupboard is as bare as ours in terms of bona fide star players.