2019/20 Players' Transactions: Breaking News , Trades, Free Agents, And Rumors

If Bill Plaschke says it then I'm not in favor of it. The guy knows nothing about basketball.

 

I agree in principle, but only if Kawhi is a) healthy, b) signs an extension contingent on the deal going through, and c) can explain in a way that isn't concerning why he quit on his team (as in- the Spurs doctors did him dirty and then they decided not to offer him the supermax). If he quit on his team all year just to get out, that's a concern for me. Will he do that again to us if things go poorly?

 

I'd prefer the SW convo. I really would like to debate with someone about the merits of the film. It's not a quick watch, it's a slow burn and it took me multiple viewings to catch everything.

The comparison is relatively simple: one is a luxury and one is a necessity. Right now the kids are a necessity to our rebuild because of their talent-to-cost ratio. And the point isn't to trade a Lamborghini in to get a house out, it's to trade a house out to get a Lamborghini.

The kids right now are essential to our rebuild and shouldn't be let go for anything short of a sure thing. @abeer3 and I got some flack earlier in the year for suggesting trading some of the youth for Anthony Davis, but that is an example of the kind of trade that makes sense. Moving these kids for a guy not on an extended deal, not healthy, and watching his team go down 0-3 to the Warriors from NY is a move that doesn't make sense. It's trading a house for a Lamborghini.

And yet Bynum went to Philadelphia and we traded for Thomas. Every trade is subject to a physical, but sometimes things go through or the team waives the physical or the team is overconfident they can make the necessary changes. It's not something you can so easily dismiss.

As for the rumors, you're right. They're relatively new ones that came after I'd made my initial comment. However, I don't believe Woj or Sham or Ramona (the three I trust most with this type of thing) have said anything about Kawhi wanting to be here. We've heard plenty about the Lakers wanting Kawhi, but not the other way around.

As for suspended belief on George, I don't know where you got that from. George made it expressly known he wanted to be a Laker. No suspension of belief needed, it came from him directly.

Nope. I'm not making that move unless he signs an outright extension. I want no part of losing half of our young, promising players (a team that could potentially make the playoffs next year without any major additions) for a guy who still could leave in FA the next summer. He's finishing his 7th season. He must sign at least a two year deal to finish his 9th year where we could offer him the most money due to his Bird Rights. The trade is contingent upon that happening, if it doesn't, I'm not moving. I'll take my chances.

Oh c'mon. Don't try to drag Dr. Buss into this. This isn't a bet Dr. Buss would make. If we sign LeBron and George, sure let's trade for Kawhi because Kawhi would be stupid not to sign an extension and we'd be silly not to give ourselves the best shot at a title at that point, but let's not pretend like Dr. Buss would be out here making the Dwight Howard deal again.

I don't disagree with any of this, but you said before that he projects as a 6th man. I don't think that's true at all. I think if you're a team evaluating Kuzma, you're definitely thinking much bigger than that. He's got tremendous offensive versatility, has a great feel for the game, isn't afraid of the moment, and is still just a rookie. Teams would love to have Kuzma and they wouldn't be putting a ceiling on him of "6th man".

Yes we are because Ball just had one of the most unique seasons a rookie PG has ever had. I don't know why you're determined not to see that. I also don't know where you're getting this "Westbrook and Wall projected way better than Ball" nonsense from.

Westbrook: Ortg 99 Drtg 111 PER 15.2 TS 48.9% USG 25.8% AST 27.5% TOV 17.6% TRB 6.9% WS 1.9 BPM -0.1 VORP 1.3 STL 2.1% BLK 0.4%
15.3 points, 5.3 assists, 4.9 rebounds, 1.3 steals, 0.2 blocks, 3.3 turnovers, 32.5 mpg

Wall: Ortg 100 Drtg 110 PER 15.8 TS 49.4% USG 23.8% AST 36% TOV 18.6% TRB 8.6% WS 2.2 BPM -0.2 VORP 1.2 STL 2.4% BLK 1.0%
16.4 points, 8.3 assists, 4.6 rebounds, 1.8 steals, 0.5 blocks, 3.8 turnovers, 37.8 mpg

James: Ortg 99 Drtg 104 PER 18.3 TS 48.8% USG 28.2% AST 27.8% TOV 13.9% TRB 7.6% WS 5.1 BPM 1.9 VORP 3.1 STL 2.2% BLK 1.3%
20.9 points, 5.9 assists, 5.5 rebounds, 1.6 steals, 0.7 blocks, 3.5 turnovers, 39.5 mpg

Kidd: Ortg 103 Drtg 109 PER 15.1 TS 47.1% USG 19.0% AST 33.2% TOV 20.4% TRB 8.7% WS 3.7 BPM 1.7 VORP 2.5 STL 2.9% BLK 0.6%
11.7 points, 7.7 assists, 5.4 rebounds, 1.9 steals, 0.3 blocks, 3.2 turnovers, 33.8 mpg

Ball: Ortg 97 Drtg 106 PER 12.5 TS 44.4% USG 17.4% AST 29.2% TOV 18.6% TRB 10.8% WS 2.0 BPM 1.7 VORP 1.7 STL 2.4% BLK 2.0%
10.2 points, 7.2 assists, 6.9 rebounds, 1.7 steals, 0.8 blocks, 2.6 turnovers, 34.2 mpg

Ball is within spitting distance of all of those numbers and is better in some cases. You can try all you want, but you can't minimize the impact this kid has on the game. He's a tremendous prospect, efficiency issues and all. And again for the record Jason Kidd's rookie season (2 years older than Lonzo) was strikingly similar from their efficiency splits: 38.5/27.2/69.8 for Kidd and 36/30.5/45.1 for Lonzo. The difference of course being Lonzo's horrifying FT% which needs to increase at least 20% this summer. He shot 67% in college so I don't consider this some unfixable problem. Not to mention, improving FT% is maybe the easiest thing to do as a professional basketball player.

This is such a horrible argument for efficiency and for Lonzo in general. All of those players also played 20 more games than Lonzo and went to the FT line a RIDICULOUS amount more than Lonzo.

LeBron James- 460 FTa
Russell Westbrook- 428 FTa
John Wall- 393 FTa
Jason Kidd- 275 FTa
Lonzo Ball- 71 FTa

You don't think Lonzo's thin, physically weak body had anything to do with it? Do you forget Lonzo was one of the most efficient and effective offensive players in college basketball at 67.3 TS%? You think that all just disappeared? He shot 33% from outside from December to March. The kid can shoot fine.

2 week period? He shot over 33% over the last 4 months of the season. All three could get into the lane and finish? Westbrook shot worse than Lonzo did at the rim as a rookie, only Wall and LeBron were significantly better at the rim (both at or near 60%).

What that tells you is basically what you want to learn from the stats. It's far less about ability, Lonzo can and does get into the lane, he just doesn't want to try to finish over the top because he's basically a noodle (like most of us were at 19 years old). He instead passes up those shots for open threes which is why his USG is far less than those players and his AST/TO ratio is far better than those players even as a rookie. The kid needs to get stronger and more aggressive at the rim, but your conclusion that he a) can't shoot and b) can't get into the lane are false which should have been easy to see when watching him play.

The point I'm making in regards to Ball is he's on track to look like his own version of these great players. His efficiency is literally the only minor concern, but nearly every great player in history has had trouble with efficiency as a rookie. It's a common theme. In every other facet Lonzo is a tremendous player, historically one of the best, given his age. He is without a doubt our best prospect right now. By the way LeBron has shot 35% or better in six of the last seven seasons so he's turned himself into a fine shooter. Jason Kidd shot over 35% in seven of his last nine seasons. John Wall is still a young guy but finished this year over 37% and has shot 35% or better in three of the last five seasons. All three of them shot worse than Lonzo Ball did from outside as rookies.

And sure they didn't take as high a percentage of threes, but like you said the game has changed. Wall, LeBron, and Kidd couldn't shoot a lick from outside as rookies, that's their weakness same as Lonzo's is FT shooting. They all turned out just fine.

I'm now convinced you didn't watch Lonzo play basketball this year. Same as you didn't really watch Last Jedi either. This is categorically false. I wish I'd just responded to this portion earlier and saved my time, but I'm in it now. Might as well finish. This'll be the last response though. If you watched Lonzo play 50 games this year and truly think he's "not super athletic at his position", there's no point in continuing this because that's just empirically false. Not to mention, I've never really seen someone be so flippant about a player who understands the game at a higher level than 99% of the world.

Ingram didn't show that ability as a rookie much either. Go figure. A skinny kid not able to score on grown men regularly? It's wild! The truth is, that's not Lonzo's strength and never will be, but he's shown he can do it on occasion. As he gets bigger and stronger, he'll be able to do it more, but I don't want that from him anyway. Jason Kidd is in the Hall of Fame, I never really thought he'd be the guy to break down the defense for his own shot in the Playoffs. Lonzo needs a guy who can create his own shot, that's what makes he and Kuzma so complementary. That's not a weakness and Lonzo has shown he isn't afraid of taking and making big shots as a guy who can work off of a player like that. But I suppose this is the first place we can just agree to disagree in terms of valuation. All other aspects of your breakdown are just mostly wrong in regards to Lonzo's value and abilities, but this is just a preference in what a player can do. That's fine.

He didn't actually. Our team switched pretty much everything. A lot of times Randle ended up on the other team's best players because teams like to design ways to get bigs on smalls in isolation situations. He may have started the possession on them, but that doesn't mean he guarded them exclusively. I'm also not saying Brandon is a poor defender, I'm just saying Lonzo is a better, more natural defender. Brandon also has good instincts, just not as good as Lonzo. That's no insult. But the stats bear zero fruit for Ingram defensively:

Ingram: Drtg 109 DBPM 0.3 DWS 1.8 STL 1.1% BLK 1.8% STLpg 0.8 BLKpg 0.7
Ball: Drtg 106 DBPM 2.5 DWS 2.5 STL 2.4% BLK 2.0% STLpg 1.7 BLKpg 0.8

Ball lead in literally every defensive category. Again, this is no insult to Ingram, he's got potential to be a great defender, but Ball is just better at it. Ball was one of the top defensive guards in the entire NBA.

So a higher number is moot compared to a lower number now? Really? What kind of logic is that? How do you explain Lonzo's better Block percentage?

Games in which Lonzo had 4 or more blocks: 2
Games in which Ingram had 4 or more blocks: 0

Games in which Lonzo had 2 or more blocks: 15
Games in which Ingram had 2 or more blocks: 11

Ingram played 195 more minutes (7 more games) and had the same number of blocks total in the season, but it's moot for some reason that Lonzo is a better shot blocker than Ingram?

So again Lonzo's better number is moot for no reason other than to suit your predetermined conclusion?

You're going to tell me that because Lonzo had 0.1 turnovers more than Ingram per game despite having nearly double the assists, that Ingram is better with the ball? I mean Ingram had 149 turnovers to Lonzo's 136, so I guess by your logic Ingram was worse with the ball, right? This is a terrible and reductionist argument on passing ability between the two.

The whole point is that Lonzo is BY FAR a better passer and creator than Ingram. You want to compare the numbers individually by year, they look WAY worse.

Ingram as a rookie: 166 assists and 116 turnovers (1.43 assist/to ratio)
Ingram as a sophomore: 230 assists and 149 turnovers (1.54 assist/to ratio)
Lonzo as a rookie: 376 assists and 136 turnovers (2.77 assist/to ratio)

So not only did Ingram have more turnovers, but he had WAY, WAY less assists than Lonzo. How in the world could you possibly argue this is a moot discussion? Lonzo is almost literally twice the passer than Ingram is. It's incredibly easy to see both in the numbers and when they're playing.

Except for two things: 1. You're comparing a rookie to a sophomore in terms of effectiveness in their own strengths and 2. Ingram plays a half-way-decent PG, but not anywhere near the level of Lonzo Ball as a PG and there's zero evidence to suggest otherwise.

If you're going to compare Lonzo's scoring ability to Ingram's, it's far more fair to compare their rookie seasons in which Ingram was one of the most inefficient players of all time, just like Lonzo.

Ingram shooting splits as a rookie: 40.2/29.4/62.1 with a 47.4 TS%
Lonzo shooting splits as a rookie: 36/30.5/45.1 with a 44.4 TS%

Both are abysmal, but Ingram turned it around in year two. And that's Ingram's strength. Meanwhile, Lonzo excels in all other areas besides shooting/scoring and somehow he's a lesser prospect? He's a better defender and passer, those things are not close to moot. They're inarguable. Give Lonzo another year to prepare like Ingram had and why should we believe he won't improve his efficiency?

BECAUSE HE'S ON A ONE-YEAR DEAL! It's like I'm taking crazy pills!

HARDEN AND DAVIS ARE ON LONG-TERM DEALS! It's like I'm taking crazy pills! And if you suggest you'd trade Lonzo and Kuzma for Durant or Curry or LeBron on one-year deals, that's wrong too! It's the wrong move.

I'd love to, if Kawhi passed a stringent vetting process and signed an extension.

How in the world can you figure that? Kawhi and LeBron aren't PGs and Ingram is a wing! We'd have all our players playing the same effing position, especially if you brought Paul George in to the equation. A team with Kawhi and LeBron makes 1000% more sense with Lonzo Ball who doesn't need the ball to be effective which is again categorically proven by his low USG% and high AST/TO ratio. Ingram on the team would make way less sense. With Kawhi and LeBron, why would we need another wing who scores/gets to the rim? We'd have 2-3 of those on the team already. That's like saying GS should get rid of Curry for Leonard too. Why? They've already got Durant and Klay.

So more players that don't pass the ball as well as Lonzo? Is LeBron the PG? Why would he want to do that at his age?

And again, I'm ecstatic you're not Rob Pelinka. That team make up is just awful. If you make the same deal contingent on Kawhi signing an extension you can have: Lonzo/George/Kawhi/LeBron/Lopez with Hart off the bench which makes way more sense than the team you built.

 

1) did you read his reasoning in many of his arguments against Lonzo? Not good.

2) again, if Kawhi passes through all the processes necessary to guarantee that he is right mentally and physically, I (and most others) are back in the discussion. There's a dozen questions though and not a lot of good answers are likely to come of those questions.

I have no problem distinguishing top talent having watched the Lakers for a long, long time. That doesn't mean I'm selling my soul for the chance to get ripped off.

 

The tldr version:

- Lonzo is our best prospect and his efficiency issues (while needing to be addressed) do nothing to change that.
- We shouldn't trade our best prospects for a 1-year deal, no matter the player.
- If Kawhi is healthy, has his head on straight, and is willing to sign an extension contingent on the deal going through, we should be more willing to trade kids.