Luol Deng Discussion: No #Dengdump, Rather Stretched Into Cash

Fairly certain GMs didn't get excited about that short stretch the way hopelessly optimistic Laker fans did.

 

Even then i still think we would have to give up an asset to get someone interested or take back equally bad contract

 

I know. I was just joking sarcastically back
I appreciate the welcome. Liking this board already. Hope people don't get tired of my jaded outlook on the Lakers haha

 

I haven't followed this thread for a while, but denying the benefit of a veteran presence is shortsighted. I don't think most people have suggested the vet presence would pay immediate dividends. The idea is to teach kids how to be professionals and reaping the benefits down the road. I think it was well-documented that Durant, Westbrook and the rest of the OKC Thunder gave A LOT of credit to Ollie's presence there in teaching them how to be professionals. Ollie was gone before that team took the next step to being competitive, but everyone gave him the credit. But what do these guys who swear by veteran tutelage know?

 

I don't think anyone denies the benefit of a veteran presence. The problem is the Lakers feeling the need to spend 72 million on Deng to fill that void. Obviously Deng wasn't given that much solely for leadership but it was a huge justification for it, by the team and then fans/media who supported it. You bring up Kevin Ollie. Well he never earned 3.5 million in any season of his career and when he was with the Thunder he was 36, barely played and was signed for the veterans minimum. Countless veterans are available for the veterans minimum in any given offseason. General point is if the Lakers simply sought veterans to guide the young players on their journey, there was a vastly cheaper way to go about it.

 

@EddieEddie how did you find Lakersball? Referral from a friend, etc?

 

Most of us were trying to find the alternative to that left wing cesspool Lakersground. Thank God for this site. Seriously.

 

So just a search engine search for Laker Forums?

 

I'm on another forum and there is a looming possibility it may be closed down due to the domain being sold. Another poster tossed out several options and this site was on the list. I knew of some of the others and had no interest in them and I found this site to be the best for various reasons, not just limited to the awesome emojis.

 

Solid response @therealdeal and I agree with a lot of what you say but personally I don't share the same opinion that Deng was better than some of the younger options because he wasn't long-term competition. I want Ingram to have to earn what he gets, not have it handed to him because the guy signed ahead of him was old and in decline and just couldn't get it done anymore. Someone in another thread said it was good the Lakers had Nance to push Randle and I agree and I think Ingram would be motivated in a similar situation. I think Harkless would have been a nice fit and if the time came where the Lakers simply didn't need him and Ingram, then they could trade Harkless for a viable return as someone in his prime on a moderate contract. Deng provides no such value.

I don't want veterans who will fade out as the kids step forward. I want veterans who can contribute now and still be relatively integral pieces for the duration of their contract alongside the kids. That's the kind of short-term and long-term planning I wish the team took. What the Lakers did was short-term desperation. Sure in 2 or 3 years Ingram and Zubac could be solid starters and the fact that Deng and Mozgov aren't any good might not matter as much on the court but their salaries are still an unnecessary weight on the salary cap just as the kids are hitting free agency and ready to cash in.

Personally the guy I wanted was Jared Dudley. He ended up getting 3 years 30 million from the Suns. He's a quality veteran who has been in the league since 2007, a proven 3 and D guy and one who has shifted between being a starter and being a reserve pretty much his entire career and would have no problem stepping aside when Ingram was ready. He made sense to me as a "bridge SF" for Ingram.

 

I think we are pretty much on the same page @therealdeal

I was a huge Ingram fan during college and I actually said I preferred him to Simmons for the Lakers before the NBA lottery (those who suddenly supported Ingram after the Lakers got the #2 pick obviously had more convenient timing lol). Didn't think Simmons was the right fit and thought Ingram had all the tools the Lakers needed from the SF spot with his range, defense, length etc. If he can develop into a stud in 2 to 3 years, that'd be great. I understood the leadership aspect to Deng. I understood he fit Walton's offensive scheme as a quasi Harrison Barnes. I liked Deng a lot as a player and would have absolutely loved loved loved him several years ago. So when I criticize things, it's not so much an attack on the purpose of the signing and the player. I just think that if the team was as high on Ingram as most of the rest of us were, just didn't seem to make sense to me to make this particular move when you combine all aspects of it (yes, mainly the contract). I think a veteran at a lower cost like Dudley or a quality young talent who can start now and be trade bait later like Harkless made vastly more sense. Deng to me came off as a desperation signing so the Lakers can say "See guys, free agents DO want to come to the Lakers. You guys know Luol Deng, right? 2 time All-Star. All-around good guy. He is what this team needs!"

In the end Deng is a Laker and I am rooting for him. I don't root for him to fail so I can be somehow right as a detractor of the signing. I want him to do well..... if only just so the Lakers can trade him because that's what will make me feel better. Him doing this badly doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

 

Leadership!!! Thanks for the 4 year deal Mitch and Jim.

 

Um. No.

 

living the dream, to be paid without doing anything. Racist Danny Ferry was right.