DRAFT TALK Thread: Looking Like Lonzo

Yes, I agree; we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we take Ball and he is lackluster, the media will say "I told you so"... if we pass on Ball and he excels elsewhere, they will say the same. So, yes, the pressure is too great at the moment.

With that said, I am entirely in favor of trading our pick + deng/mozgov since I don't see any player in this draft being an impact player. The media keeps hyping this class, but I just don't see it.

 

not really aimed at you, as i mentioned earlier. you just have the posts worth responding to in detail.

maybe? depending on who you believe, they've been trying to move him for a couple years. it may cost something, but maybe not much. and as we've learned, overspending on vet FA role players can be more damaging than making trades.

anyway, still not sure how this side point started. i agreed we need to add shooting, but you don't have to do that via draft. in fact...

i don't want to count on a 19 year old rookie to be our shooter. or to be our anything, really. that's what 20-win seasons are made of, as we know. you don't use the draft to fill immediate needs is the larger point. you use it to find the best talent.

also, i want shooting from the pf spot, primarily. gotta get that lane unclogged.

it's better because it's not a comparison to someone who was a perennial all nba player and an mvp candidate for a few years running. that was my point. durant and curry are like that. kidd's like that. iguodala isn't.

yeah, you got me. i shouldn't have gone that way given what would follow in rebuttal. my defense is that i was just trying to point out that 20/6 five years later is certainly possible.

my real problem with the kidd comparisons isn't statistical at all. it's mostly physical. kidd was a beast; super strong for a guard. strength is so important in the nba. i think watching durant and curry win mvps and titles has made people forget that they're exceptions. and they're exceptionally skilled. like, once-in-decade-plus skilled.

i worry a bit about metrics based on the small sample sizes available for 19 year olds. i imagine i could dig back and find some doozies in these predictive models.

and anyway, my point isn't that ball will suck. it's that a) he's not clearly the #2 choice and b) the fanbase has too quickly fallen in love with a guy who's not yet on the team.

whomever is drafted (if someone's drafted...) next week, i'll start to look for reasons to like. but i just feel like i'm seeing a lot of confirmatory searches here. bothers the sensibilities. but i suppose it's not my job to protect folks from a potential letdown on draft night.

 

Man, realdeal and abeer3, two veterans going at it, and the respect is mutual. I enjoyed reading you two go back and forth. I literally couldn't decide who was more right. Bravo. That's how you smack the topic.

 

This probably speaks more to me being a judgmental prick than anything else, but Jackson does not sound like the guy I imagined when I hear "athlete with anger problems".

Seems like a good kid who I could see myself rooting for.

I'd also like to qualify something I said earlier, in regards to Jacksons skills lending themselves to being a role player and thinking we should go with the higher ceiling player.

That's if you're not as optimistic about our core. I don't know how likely it is, but I think there's still a real possibility from what we've seen so far that D'angelo and Ingram can develop into superstars. In which case I could possibly see Jackson fitting in very well as the glue guy. Go with a "death lineup" of Russell at PG, Jackson and Ingram the forwards, Randle at C. If you get a sniper at SG to space the floor, that could be a really fun team to watch.

Still want Lonzo though. Because in my mind, even if Russell and Ingram become superstars ... you actually might need another superstar (or two) down the line to really win.

 

I've been reading lots of reports on all of these prospects...and I am honestly conflicted on who I want.

My gut is still telling me Ball, but I can see why we would take Fox or JJ. Our defense has been SO BAD for years, and adding another matadar on defense won't help matters. I also see that having both JJ and Ingram can add to our versatility, especially when we go a little smaller with Nance at the 5...having Nance, JJ and Ingram switching on everything would be beautiful to watch.

I still think that Ball is the best prospect. I wouldn't listen to any of these bloggers or beat writers regarding him. Listen to his former coaches and teammates and how they talk about him. First word is usually "great teammate" or "unselfish". Also, for anybody that knows UCLA basketball...outside of Ball, that team was dog crap. The fact that TJ Leaf is going to be a first round pick is the equivalent of Kenyon Martin getting a max deal with the Nuggets after his stint with jason Kidd in NJ. Leaf wasn't on anybody's radar until Ball got him all those looks at UCLA. I can justify lakers taking Fox or JJ over Ball, but I would HATE to see Ball blow up somewhere else like Phoenix or Philly or...gulp...Sacramento.

 

Here's a thought: Maybe the front office is looking at a 2 for 1 in drafting Jackson at #2, then still getting a pretty good PG in Juwan Evans at #28. Only way not taking Ball makes sense to me.

 

If they were, an easier way would be to get Ball @2 and then find the closest thing to Jackson @28.

 

If I'm Lonzo, I leave wondering how I was just on that show and said about 10 words total.

If he's with Dad, Dad steals the show every time. He can't help himself. I'd have rather heard more from Lonzo.

 

Anybody see some Pippen in Jackson?

 

Zero

 

Was Pippen always a good shooter from distance?

 

Haven't been in for a while. Jumping in late but will say this:

Lonzo Ball - don't watch tape. Watch full games.

1. He had a hammy injury in NCAA Tourney v. KY due to being beat up the game before;
2. He single handedly turned around UCLA's team and made Leaf look like Tom Chambers early. Watch full game vs. Oregon at Pauley and see how he can make everyone
around him better. Ugly shot - yes. Clutch - absolutely.

Josh Jackson - similarly watch full games.

1. Jackson is Kobe-esque in his way to take over a game when its 'his time.' Maturity is the question.
2. Jackson's skill set is off the charts. He has a KG, Kobe, Lamarlike game. The Lamarlike comparisons not apt but in a strange sense - what worries me about Jackson is the same thing that worried some about Odom. Odom was a gifted, talented athlete who could play all positions except center. Everyone knew he had the gift --- what he would amount to was under-construction for a long time - never amounted to his full potential.

I think the most intriguing thing here is whether the lakers get cute and trade down for Sacto's 5 and 10. Jerry West would never do that. He would play it straight unless he knew some kid ranked 2 on everyone's board would not sign anywhere else. He'd trade down - and draft the kid and steal someone else while he was at it. Lakers draft Lonzo at 3 and someone else at 10. What? Trade involves Philly, Miami, Sacto and LA. Now I am making things up. It gets real fun around this time of year.

Let the games begin.

 

does Jackson have Pippen's wingspan?

 

Kid from Baylor would be available at that position - sliding down everyone's boards - Jonathan Motley.

Peace.

 

Yes.