I paid for my league pass and I'd like to get my money's worth. Losing sucks. This site would lose all traffic for 3 months if we trade Lou for a draft pick. You watch.
The young players are currently terrible and Lou freaking Willliams isn't the reason why . First it was Kobe and Byron , now it's Lou then it will be Nick ... then Luke ?
That's not the issue we're debating. The issue we're debating is this: Should the Lakers trade Lou Williams? The answer to most of us is a RESOUNDING YES. We're in asset acquisition mode. Any chance you have to add asset(s) to a franchise in our state of turmoil on and off the court, you take it.
The advanced metrics say he wins us games. We've won only 19 games. How many games has he won us? How many games has he lost us? The advanced metrics say he's in our best lineups, but that doesn't mean anything to me when we have only 19 wins. You think the kids are playing enough? We have no one on our team playing 30 minutes a game. Julius plays the most at 28.2 minutes and he's shown the most growth this year. Ingram is at 27.7, Clarkson at 27.4, Russell is all the way down at 26.5 minutes per game. For comparison: Myles Turner is at 30.9 minutes, Jabari Parker 33.9, Devin Booker 34.5, and Towns at 36.5 minutes per game. The kids are NOT playing enough and any second they play with Lou Williams is almost a waste anyway because Lou doesn't pass the ball enough. They need more time on the floor. And I don't know if you've been reading much of the recent posts, but we all know that the kids aren't exactly "earning" the time, but that's sort of irrelevant. We need to know what we have in these kids sooner rather than later. We need to know what they look like when the play 35 minutes. We need to know what they look like when they play 15 minutes. We need to see them as much as possible for the next 3 months. No where in my post did I say you said that. I was merely making a point. Losing Lou will make us worse short term and better long term. Is long term 2 years? I don't know. Depends on the kids or what we can trade them for. No it's not trading for the sake of trading. I gave you three legitimate answers and you're excusing them because you don't like them. If you're only going to think short term, we're going to stay in the same crap hole we've been in for going on 4 years now. There needs to be a bigger picture to this.[/QUOTE]
That's rough - having paid for this. Sorry, man. To be honest, we've already won more games than last season, and we're not dead here yet. I think we'll be good without Lou. For what it's worth, I stop watching and following online when Lou enters the game. I simply don't care about him at this point, as he's not going to be here - hopefully as soon as next week.
By the way, I'd encourage anybody to look at this roster just three years ago; for all the criticism Mitch receives (some well-deserved), but take a look at our roster from 2014-15 to where we are now: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2015.html http://www.espn.com/nba/team/roster/_/name/lal/los-angeles-lakers We're in the best position we've been in awhile to talk 'trade' because of our assets we've accumulated through the draft.
@therealdeal I doubt Luke would play the kids more minute even if we lose Lou. Trading Lou for a pick is a pro-tank move. What message does that send to the kids? What happened to building a winning culture? @trodgers Thanks man.
I'm definitely pro - trading Lou. It's not about tanking, it's about using our assets to get better. Lou has no place here long term. Trade him while he's hot and has value with that relatively low price contract.
I don't see it as prohibitive either. I was just noting that it could be longer than Lou by one year and that the long term deal would be a frontcourt player where the Lakers already have 5 signed into next season. As I noted, Smith should have decent trade value this summer as a capable big with a moderate contract and a decent throw-in in a bigger deal. I don't have any issue with a Smith + 1st for Lou swap at all. I agree that trading Lou and releasing Calderon (the latter being a favor to the veteran so he can sign with a playoff team) without getting a guard back would gut the guard depth. Even with Young still in tow, team would be left with Russell, Clarkson, Huertas, Young and then some of Ingram at SG if he slides down from SF. Trading Smith also leaves the Wizards a little vulnerable in the frontcourt relying on Mahinmi to stay healthy. So the inclusion of Robinson/McClellan serves both teams.
Eight players on that roster played their last minutes in the NBA on that team or with the Lakers the next season. Well, Kelly played a few this year but not much. Atrocious.
Btw, I think the pick could be packaged to get a good player. I've suggested a trade for Cousins and for Drummond - but both require at least a first rounder.
He'll have to. We won't have the players to take those minutes. I'm also interested in trading Nick Young for what it's worth.
Iman Shumpert is a guy I always liked; Can guard positions 1-3, was hitting the 3-ball well this year, comes with a ring; can handle the ball a little and create.
Sessions averaged 12.7ppg 3.8rpg 6.2apg and shot 48.6% on threes in his short time with the Lakers and was a starter in the playoffs for that Laker team that went to the 2nd round of the playoffs losing to OKC that had KD, Russ and Ibaka. The Lakers are the one who let Sessions leave as a free agent. Just like they did with Bazemore. And the Sessions trade in 2012 was not the last deadline deal the Lakers have made. See above about Bazemore. That was 2014.
If the pick is packaged with a couple of our youngins down the road for a very good player , sure , if not this will another young player to develop and we have already enough of them . Imo the trade talks should be more focused on trading Julius and JC as their trade value is still pretty good right now , unfortunately I doubt our FO is considering it
