Los Angeles Lakers: Searching for the Perfect Dump

I don't think what I'm saying is farfetched at all. We haven't signed Ingram. Westbrook hasn't signed his extension so the Thunder are very likely to trade him early. Why wait? The longer they wait, the harder it is to move him for value. If they pull the trigger now they can get a great package like Russell/Ingram or maybe Thomas/Brown/Brooklyn's 1st or something like that. If they wait they'll get a fraction of the return. The Lakers would still have Clarkson, Randle, Nance Jr., Zubac, and Black for young players they want to develop.

Does waiting around for the kids to develop for 3-5 years sound like the kind of waiting game that the Lakers want to play?

I'm not saying I WANT this to happen, but I see absolute merit in the possibility.

 

Warriors are going to own the West for 3-5 years, so yes, that's a waiting game that's smart to play. You have young, talented players on rookie deals, you find out which ones are gonna stick, and you keep trying to sign a player in the offseason. Westbrook this time, then Paul George next time, etc. Unless we somehow put together our own mini-Team USA, we aren't winning a thing with Westbrook for years anyway, it's a stupid trade to make. Lakers aren't hurting for tv ratings, aren't hurting for ticket sales, zero need to give up the future we sufferer for to get a player that will be out of his prime by the time GS are out of theirs.

 

Neither of you answered the question though:

Do you REALLY think the Lakers are the kind of team that want to sit around and wait for 3-5 years?

I agree that trading both (or maybe either depending on your view) of Russell and Ingram is a bad move, but do you think the LAKERS agree?

 

"Wait" for what? Even with Westbrook (and Russell and Ingram or Randle gone) we'd be fighting for an eighth seed. We are going to be "waiting" to win for 3-5 years no matter what route we go unless we somehow got Westbrook, LeBron, and like Cousins here at the same time. If the Lakers aren't willing to wait, they're morons. If Mitch and Jim mortgage the future again to try and win now, they deserve whatever they get. So, yes, I do think the Lakers have the common sense to realize they need to be patient here. Mitch is not a moron, I think he realizes we aren't competing with the Warriors right now no matter what. The Warriors have 3 players on Team USA, and another that would have been in Curry were he not injured or whatever.

 

The Lakers will NOT wait around for 3-5 years for this group to develop... They have been spurned in free agency several times during the last two off-seasons to the point of humiliation so they are probably are exploring a trade.

I do not want to trade any of the young core for Westbrook. Really risky move, impetuous and reeks of desperation.

 

...and if they make loud noise, Superstar A will see after 2016 and say to himself "those young bucks could use me and they can extend my career". Superstar A says to Superstar B "Yo, they got another max contract slot...come on down, homie!"

I'd rather do it that way... Kupchak is on record saying that the Lakers were not an attractive product on the prior pitches. Now there is potential there to be more than just competitive. Maybe, just maybe we hold our cards and not deal at all.

 

If you guys think the Lakers are excited about a 3-5 year rebuild or think it's something they would rather do than have Westbrook I disagree. @Weezy and @gcclaker you guys are arguing that we shouldn't. I'm asking if they will or not. I don't think we should (depending on the deal) but I think the Lakers would disagree with that. I think they'd much much rather have Westbrook than wait on the kids.

That's my point and if you don't agree that's cool. I hope I'm wrong. I think they're willing to wait if they have to but I think they'd rather get Westbrook if they can.

 

I answered your query that the Lakers will NOT wait for Westbrook and will try to trade for him provided the offer is reasonable and that they have some assurance that he will sign an extension. They will give it a shot if OKC is entertaining offers...

My take is that they should not.

 

My bad gcc. I mostly agree with you. I think if there's a deal where you can keep a handful of young talent then go for it, but I do agree that we shouldn't jump to offer both of the young cats. However, I think the LAKERS would much rather move first and get Westbrook if they can.

 

This is absolutely true. If I'm the Lakers I'm not eager to part with both Russell and Ingram for anyone in the league, BUT if I can keep one of them along with a couple solid young kids and get Westbrook out of it... I don't see how the Lakers pass on that. I know we as fans don't want it, but I don't see how the Lakers pass on the opportunity to get a hometown star with fantastic marketability that is a perennial MVP candidate.

I hope they aren't considering offering both Ingram and Russell for him. I hope Mitch and Jim don't get that desperate, but if we bore that out I think the Lakers might do that considering they'd keep Clarkson, Randle, Nance Jr., Zubac, and to a lesser extent Black. They'd still have plenty of solid young talent to build around.

 

I agree that the Lakers would prefer someone with more years, but I'm not convinced Cousins is available. Everyone says the Kings are not taking calls for him and want to give him a shot to lead their team before blowing things up.

I don't think the Lakers are an organization that is comfortable with any length of time when they're not competitive. I think they'd view the young kids as assets to flip for proven talent. The issue that is holding everything up obviously is I'm not convinced they'd trade BOTH #2 picks for a guy who could walk at the end of the season. If there's some discussions about a trade, I'm sure the Lakers are telling OKC that they won't move both of their top prospects for a guy who can walk at the end of the year. Now if Westbrook signed the extension (which he now can do), then the Lakers would probably be inclined to throw both #2s at OKC to try to nab him.

 

Izzz cool. The concern amongst management is that the current group will develop to be "very good but not great" enough to win it all sort of like Memphis all these seasons. If part of the core has to be traded for Westbrook, it will have to be Russell and Randle. Ingram should be untouchable while Clarkson isn't that compelling of a piece. That happens...

PG - Westbrook
SG - Clarkson
SF - Deng
PF - Nance
C - Mozgov

Decent but not enough of a threat to anyone. The bench will have to lean on Ingram, Williams and Zu who will likely have his time accelerated. I glanced through OKC's current roster and I really like our above line-up for Westbrook. They have good players but no one that stands out besides Westbrook. Maybe Oladipo...

Three years from now when the young ones hit their stride...Golden State will be on a possible downslope. San Antonio? Who knows... Duncan type players are generational. James would be on his last legs in Cleveland. A three year development plan is an eternity for the spoiled, impatient and entitled Laker fan-base. Personally, I want to watch our young core grow and enjoy their progress.

2018:
PG - Russell
SG - Clarkson
SF - Ingram
PF - Randle
C - Zubaca

Caveat: I am not sure if Nance will be around by then still a reserve... Also after two seasons, I would think we would have used the most out of Deng and Mozgov. Given the scouting department's ability to draft well, it should not be much of a concern plus we should be attractive enough to lure solid, experienced, good character vets for support. I think either way, we'll be covered.