Los Angeles Lakers vs Milwaukee Bucks
Thu Feb 5, 1:00 AM EST – TWSN, FSWI
Line: MIL -9.0, O/U: 192.5
BMO Harris Bradley Center – Milwaukee, WI
The Lakers’ last game was a forgettable one — a hat-handed-to-them loss in New York by the Knicks. That game saw Carmelo Anthony pretty much eviscerate any defender the Lakers put in front of him (sorry, Ryan Kelly you were outmatched when the ball was tipped) and the rest of the team ride his coattails to what was a pretty easy victory considering the closeness of the records of the two teams.
With a couple of days off to chew on that loss, the Lakers are back in action tonight against the surprising Bucks. Even after a season ending knee injury to prized rookie Jabari Parker, continued off-court issues for Center Larry Sanders, and the adjustments of playing under new coach Jason Kidd, the Bucks are 4 games over .500 and looking like one of those dangerous teams who can give a top seed some issues when the playoffs start. They have youth, athleticism, length, and a commitment to defense that has proven to be the foundation for a nice run through the first half of the year.
In other words, they have been the opposite of the Lakers. It used to be that sentence would be a good thing when discussing the Lakers and Bucks. Not so much anymore.
In any event, the Lakers, though rested, will have their hands full tonight. While the Bucks don’t have a traditional “star” in their lineup, Giannis Antetokounmpo is one of the most exciting players in the league, becoming some sort of hybrid player of Anthony Randolph’s realized potential and Jazz era Andrei Kirilenko. The “Greek Freak” as he’s known, can, seemingly at least once a game, be found dribbling the length of the court (in four dribbles) and euro-stepping from the three point line to finish with a dunk. The kid may not have a developed jumper, but his giant strides and incredible reach allow him to finish in the lane from spots on the floor thought to be impossible.
Along with Antetokounmpo, the Bucks have several other young and veteran players having good to very good years. Brandon Knight, who came to the Bucks in the trade of Brandon Jennings, is boasting career best numbers as a scorer and assist man. He still has holes in his game and can be mistake prone, but he’s doing more good than bad nightly. Add to him OJ Mayo, Jerryd Bayless, and Jared Dudley they have a fine wing rotation. With Ersan Ilyasova, John Henson, Zaza Pachulia and the aforementioned Antetokounmpo, their bigs are also a nice group.
What this means is that the Lakers will have their hands full. With Jordan Hill nursing his hip-flexor strain, Tarik Black will start and the team will need his hustle on the glass and quick wits defensively to try and combat the Bucks’ attack. Similar efforts from Ed Davis will also help, as will timely scoring and rebounding from Carlos Boozer. With Nick Young back in the lineup after his DNP against the Knicks, there is hope he can bring some offensive firepower off the bench while giving Jeremy Lin more room to operate via better floor spacing than Wes Johnson provides.
Those are the hopes. We will see if they can actually pull it off.
Where you can watch: 5pm start time on TWC Sportsnet. Also listen on ESPN Radio 710AM Los Angeles.
Is Nick Young back in the lineup? Odd to have not come in yet.
Anyone not just looking at the box score who can shed some light on this for me?
And I should’ve just waited an extra 2 minutes….!
Can Scott read? Jelly now shooting 32% on year and still starts. Worst coach in NBA. A joke!
Lakers starting unit combined averages 27.9 points per game. (3.8, 4.8, 3.9, 6.8, 8.6). That might be a record.
I give our guys a whole lot of credit for their effort.
Lakers lulled the Bucks to sleep and now have a chance to steal one on the road. Showing some pride.
If you wanna talk about coaching, how about Jason Kidd not adjusting to the Lakers frontline outmuscling his young guys? He never used Pachulia or Martin to counter the offensive rebounding of the Lakers.
Tough loss. Boozer, Davis, Lin and Ellington really played well.
Nice int foul before 3 pointer to tie. Jelly your starter zero. Yes worst coach in the NBA Bryon the tanker.
Craig W. says
We are looking at our talent, not putting the 5 best players in the starting lineup. I guess I just don’t see all the complaining about coaching when it is obvious we are looking at how our youngsters do in different situations.
Craig look up the numbers. Last 4 years he has the lowest W-L % in consectative years (under 30%) in NBA history?
How can you just pass that off. After Cleveland he had no offers for 4 years. There is a reason.
Thank you OJ mayo and B knight!! Wins are meaningless at this point. Rather see Clarkson and black get some real burn like they did tonight in the 4th and OT. Oh wait, I guess they didn’t since BS has no clue what he’s doing. Played Booz and Lin trying for a W and still lost!!
LKK. Huh. Lin was 2 for 12. Guess that’s good for this horrible team.
Talk about diminished expectations?
I gotta say im happy about the Loss, we are only a few games up on the wolbes who won tonight so we could be in great shape for a top 3 if not #1 pick …. for all the crap we have went though this might be when our karma starts to turn around … if we finish at the bottom and somehow get kicked out of our pick though ….. the curse of Lamar
Reggie Hammond says
Well ko if he’s coaching to tank he may be the best coach in the NBA
You’re right. Lin shot the ball poorly from the field. I thought he played good D and combined with Boozer for some nice assists. Diminished expectations? You’re right about that too. I know that with the team the Lakers are fielding at present any victory against any team is a long shot. We are fans of a bad team; one that is undermanned and injury ravaged. All the ranting and nitpicking in the world is not going to change that.
Reggie I agree. It worked for Cleveland. If it worK’s here he should get cards made up.
I tank for $3 million a year.
To be serious I feel he means well but his hard headed methods and favoritism is outdated.
Clearly he dosen’t like Lin or Nick but must love Kelly and Wes. Looks like he broke up with Price who hasen’t played in 2-weeks,
Win or lose play your best payers unless your job is to tank,
Renato Afonso says
Depressing as usual… The coaching was really sub-par on both sides, even if the players don’t help them. I stand by what I said in November of 2013: Kelly is end of the bench material.
What happened to Clarkson last night?
I know that with the team the Lakers are fielding at present any victory against any team is a long shot. We are fans of a bad team; one that is undermanned and injury ravaged. All the ranting and nitpicking in the world is not going to change that.
well said; at the very least we´ve got our young talent to watch and evaluate, hoping they can develop: Black, Clarkson et al. – Add to that a win every now and again, any win, for a wee bit of pleasure & basically that´s where we´re at…
My take away from watching the game last night is:
a) the good news is we have talent – its roster spots 7-14 talent but that’s a good thing.
b) the bad news is that this same talent is filling spots 1 – 6 on our roster.
What else I find interesting is the depth we have at big forward, Hill, Davis, Black and Boozer. Carlos won’t be back unless he wants to take a significant paycut – but I also think he’s played well enough to be the 1st big off the bench on a good team. So that leaves Hill, Davis and Black — and Randle since it seems his best position is the Four as well.
I’d think the FO would try and deal either Hill or Davis but I understand from the last thread that this isn’t as easy as we’d like to think. My preference would be to trade Hill and resign Davis. Ed is younger and we’d likely be able to sign him or less than $9 Mil/year. I’d then play Davis as my center because he doesn’t really have an offensive game beyond the paint. Next year I’d start Davis and Randle as my center and big forward respectively.
I’d try to keep Black (not sure if he’s a FA this summer or not again it was discussed in the last thread but I don’t think we clarified this) if he comes cheaply enough. I envision him as being a nice rotational big.
So my goal as we head towards the trade deadline would be to move Hill as his skills set is redundant with Davis and Black. Now if we could get anything for Lin and Young I’d move them as well — although their trade value is limited to teams that have specific needs.
@ano: Randle as big forward?!? At 6’9” he is more of a small forward when it comes to his size…so right now i would play him as a lamar odom type off the bench as i think that suits his style of play better….i hope he develops a consistent 3 pointer so we can play him at the 3 consistently
I would het rid of hill and davis and play black more, say 25mins…i think he has a nice future in this league
J C says
Randle is a 4.
Kelly is a D-leaguer.
Lin is untradeable.
Davis is a keeper.
bleedpurplegold: First off let’s hope that Randle comes back healthy!
This board went round and round last summer about whether Randle was a three or a four. I agree, I’d like to see him as a three – I’m more old school and would prefer my center and power forward to be twin towers. He was used as a SF in high school (his nickname was ‘Baby Lebron’ for his ability to take the ball up the court to score). He was used almost exclusively in the low post at Kentucky.
I think it comes down to who he can guard at this level. If he can guard the three then he may well indeed play there on defense allowing a larger more traditional power forward to play opposite him. On the offensive end it also depends who he plays opposite. If the big forward has a jump shot then it would allow Randle to go inside periodically where his ability to score and rebound would be an asset. I think the big fear among those who want Randle at the Four is that they don’t want to see such a talented inside scorer/rebounder neutralized by playing on the perimeter.
Lottery Machine is up on ESPN
It’s looking like
Okarfor if we get #1
Mundaiy if he is available or at #2
Karl Anthony Towns at #3
D’Angelo Russel at #4
Kristaps Porzingis at # 5 …. does anyone know about this guy?
Craig W. says
Are we still picking positions based on height? I thought Charles Barkley pretty much put a period on that argument.
It really depends on how quick Randle’s lateral movement is as to whether he can guard at the 3 position. On offense, he would seem be be better used in driving to the basket or posting up – regardless of size. He has the girth to bully and any system he is in should take advantage of this, no matter what his listed position.
I thought most posters here were in favor of working to our player’s strengths, rather than implementing any specific system.
the other Stephen says
Maybe if we draft Stanley Johnson, he can shame Wesley for besmirching the family name.
Regarding Byron. I was not in favor of hiring him as I don’t think he’s a great coach — certainly not one that can lead a team to a championship. However, I look at him now as a caretaker of sorts. He’ll bridge the painful gap needed to unwind from Kobe’s contract and the time needed to restock the roster. He’ll take the bullets (losses) that another coach would not tolerate.
So, I think Byron is here through next year and possibly for a third year as well. However, when the Lakers turn the corner talent wise, I think they will look for a dynamic forward looking coach to take over.
Agree on your take, 6’9” at pf is big enough if you have the athletisicm and rebounding instincts to play the 4
Like you said, it depends on if he has the quickness to guard the three….from what i have seen in SL, i think he is capeable of it…BUT like i said i would only play him at the 3 if he develops a reliable jumper from 15 feet out, otherwise defenders could just let him alone outside trying to stop his drive, plus we would have a spacing problem with 3 paint scorers…..you need to have at least 3 guys on the floor able to shoot if you want to have success in the nba today
agree on your twin tower take….however, one of those two should be able to make an occasional mid range jumper like the gasols, blake or millsap….
randles ability to handle the ball, bring it up and score off the drive is what makes me think he should play the three…..let him work on his outside game all summer long and he will be a serious threat next year as defenders have to pick their poison
A core of kobe-randle-okafor/towns plus a solid FA would be deadly next season with a solid bench already in place
Lance: Love it. You might be interested in my post from 06/07/2014 at 12:45 PM.
I agree with you. A core of Randle, Kobe, Okafor / Towns (that’s two recent lottery picks) plus a free agent or two (Draymond Green? Reggie Jackson?) would not only be potentially formidable (although we’d have to give the young players some time to develop) but it would certainly be different.
You would have (hopefully) a rim protector plus Randle grabbing rebounds and driving hard to the basket plus Kobe in his final year + a FA or two plus a stronger and more mature Jordan Clarkson plus Tarik Black and maybe Wayne Ellington and others coming off the bench, not to mention the possible inclusion of Jordan Hill and/or Ed Davis.
The only caveat would be that the young players would need, as I mentioned above, some time to develop. But the 2nd half of next year could reveal a Lakers squad worth watching and a 2nd unit that could be formidable.
However, I still say that it could take 4-5 years for the Lakers to return to relevance (including, and beginning with, this year). It’s just the reality.
Julius Randle is really 6-8 and isn’t long enough to be the kind of rim protector you want from a PF. Robert Horry was 6-10 and long… So although he didn’t have the girth to play one on one defense in the post the main concern as a big man especially in today’s NBA is help defense/rim protection. Randle has the handle to play SF but most importantly his best position as far as defending is SF. He will need to shoot the three no matter what whether he is at SF or PF. You need guys to spread the floor at either of those spots. However we are splitting hairs. In the end the position he plays will only come down to the rest of the Lakers roster. If the Lakers have a starting SF on the roster then Randle will play PF… If they end up getting a starting quality PF on the roster then Randle will play at the SF spot.
@the other stephen,
Good eye. Stanley Johnson, the 6-7, 245 SF at the University of Arizona, is a beast. And he’s young (only a freshman). And he’s from So Cal (Fullerton). When he’s on his game, he’s unguardable. Recently, he had a Pac-12 game in which he scored 18 pts in the 2nd half. No one could cover him. And he plays defense and rebounds.
Some NBA draft web sites are suggesting that he could go as high as #3. Obviously, he would fill a gaping hole in the Lakers’ lineup. He’s definitely worth watching.
bryan S. says
On Randle ( At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum (what else is there talk about today?):
Randle is a 3/4. Height 6′ 8 3/4″ in socks. Wingspan 7′, max vertical 35.5″, 8′.95 standing reach (combine).
Best comp: Blake Griffin. Almost identical in height, weight, vertical jump.
Kobe’s take: Randle is a point forward. (think LeBron-like skills if he can develop shooting range)
skill comp with Griffin as rookies:
lateral quickness: Randle
(Please remember this comp is as rookies–Griffin has worked extremely hard to improve his skills since getting drafted.)
Aaron’s comments on what position Randle will play will be determined by who’s on the roster are spot on. ( I must confess I have no confidence in BS’ ability to play guys at their best position.)
Rim-protectors at the 5 are key to today’s defensive game (see Warriors, Rockets etc.) This allows the other players to switch and defend the 3 pt line. This is why I hope we can draft Towns rather than Okafor. I just haven’t seen enough lateral quickness from Okafor to think he be anything but a average defensive center. A rim protector is also important if Randle plays the four, as he will need help against length.
Randle’s maximum upside is a player who can attack with power and quickness, and dish to others as he collapses the defense. A power 3. If he can develop his outside shooting, his upside is Blake Griffin range. That’s elite, fellas.
On Stanley Johnson: Too much like Randle. If we are going to draft a forward, I like UCLA’s Kevon Looney: 6’10” long, stretch skills, shot blocker. Good quickness.
Arizona has several players worth keeping an eye on; others are Rondae-Hollis Jefferson, Brandon Ashley, and Kaleb Tarcewski for lower picks.
I’ve viewed far more college games than NBA games the past few seasons knowing the Lakers are vetting players for the draft.
As Darius and others have stated, the Lakers have to nail every one of this year’s picks.
Some scouts think that Arizona’s Rondae Hollis-Jefferson could be the best wing defender in the NCAA. Unless it’s a center, Arizona always has him guarding the other team’s best player, even if it’s a point guard. (Hollis-Jefferson is a SF, 6-7, 220.)
He doesn’t shoot well from 3-point range (21%), but he’s an excellent slasher (10.9 ppg, 50.3% shooting overall), he rebounds very well (6.3 rebounds per game in 27.5 minutes), and he defends like mad (probably better than anyone on the Lakers’ team).
I think he’ll go late in the first round (where the Lakers will probably have a selection from Houston in the Lin trade). If he learns to shoot from distance, Hollis-Jefferson could have an excellent future.
Arizona is loaded. So is Kentucky. Good grief. (I went to Michigan. No such luck.)
Baylor Fan says
The comp between Randle’s and Griffin’s rookie years is eerie given that they both missed them due to injury. From what I saw, Randle wishes he has Griffin’s vertical jumping abilities. The only way he plays 3 is if the Lakers give him lots of defensive help on screens. It is encouraging that Griffin appeared to fully recover from a traumatic injury. Hopefully, Randle’s real rookie year will also take off.
Mid-Wilshire, that’s why I sort of covet Rondae he does what ever it takes to win. But as you stated he has no range on his jumper.
I watched the Michigan v. Michigan State game the other day very competitive game. I like Michigan State’s Valentine as a utility player, he plays a bit like Draymond whom I also watched when he played there.
I gotta admit that i have never watched hollis-jefferson, but from what u wrote that seems like a smaller version of what we already have in randle…so i would pass on him…
We need different things right now….so here is my list in no particular order
-a big rim protector at C who can score in the low post
Black isnt big enough to play c, plus i wouldnt trust him to develop into a reliable starter….i think 6th man is his ceiling…hill is too expensive and to small as well….sacre is a d-league player at best
– a stretch 4
You can not win in todays nba if you havent one…diaw for the spurs, blake for the flippers, green for gsw, gasol for the bulls, love for the cavs….list goes on….spacing is key today….and jelly kelly proved that he isnt even able to play at the high school level this year
– point guard with devensive ability
The west is stacked with great points, from russ to parker to rondo or curry…you have to be able to contain them
– shooting guard
kobe wont get younger, and i doubt he will keep playing beyond next year…hell i even doubt he can stay healthy in 15-16, even if i would like him to….nick young could play some 2 at times, but he isnt startimg material
– 3 and D small forward
wes isnt the answer there, i think we all can agree on that….plus his jumper is way too inconsistent
drafting another rebounding slasher would be stupid, even if he is a great defender, we have so many needs right now that we have to address with that pick that drafting hollis-jefferson would be the wrong choice, especially considering his shaky 3 on the college level, let alone the nba 3
With the discussion turning towards the draft – the Lakers may luck into four picks this year (2 first and 2 second). I kind of wish we had that many picks every year – gives you an idea of the flexibility Boston (19 picks over the next 4 years) and Utah (14 picks over 4 years) will have.
I remember Dr. Buss saying about the Lakers, ‘the team doesn’t get 1 year older every season it gets 14 years older.’ His point was that the team got a year older for every roster spot there was. In his mind it was important to always bring in fresh young talent. The new CBA makes the draft the most cost effective way to infuse talent across the roster. I hope in the future we think twice about being as eager to trade our picks away as we have been in the past.
Randle is a problematic tweener. He is not really long enough to be an effective defender as a PF and I have doubts he will be as impressive in the post against NBA level starting defenders. If he is played at SF his speed is less of an asset. He has intriguing abilities but as an odd fit I think he may become a proverbial 6th man. The guy he reminds me most of is Michael Beasly but with a much better competitive spirit.
I’m also not very sold on his long term health. I remember an article quoting the Lakers nutritionist (I believe Cate Shanahan) saying he needed to drink more milk growing up. Just not very inspiring.
Stuart — exactly. It’s a different landscape now. Period.
bryan S. says
Vasheed: Honestly, did Randle refuse to give you an autograph? Your “memory” on what Cate Shanahan said about Randle not drinking enough milk growing up, is, well, different from what she actually said. She never said that; what she did say (never mentioned Randle at all, that was the author of article), is that she believes that some of the bone injuries in sports might be because kids aren’t drinking enough millk. Without looking, I can say that she might be right, but doesn’t have the data to prove her hunch. (Did James Worthy also suffer from a lack of calcium from lack of milk as a child? What about cultures where milk isn’t consumed? Do Polynesians have weak bones? Aren’t they known for high bone density?) Where Cate Shanahan is certainly correct, is in identifying the consumption of soft drinks with calcium depletion.
FWIW, My theory on why we seemingly see more bone fractures in young NBA players is that they have never been subjected to the stresses on their skeletons that they get at the professional level. They are also very young men, whose bones are still growing and strengthening. My 16 year old son is 6’3″ plus and his doctor said that tall guys have longer growth horizons than average sized guys, and that he could continue to grow until age 20 or so.)
Randle as a SF: His quickness won’t be an advantage defensively against quick 3s, but it will be enough to stay in front of them; but it is on the offensive end where he will wreak havoc against smaller, weaker players.
bleedpurpleandgold: Good shopping list on what the Lakers need. (A lot!)
Craig W. says
I don’t really understand all the pessimism about Randle. From what I saw of him, he was a possible NBA starter – and that’s about as much as we should expect about any draft prospect not labeled ‘superstar’.
I love the comments about who we should be looking for and why – they open up options for us fans. I really long ago got tired of ‘whining’ about how we are in a horrible place – we have gone over that ground endless times and those comments don’t add anything to the Laker discussion any more – we have all heard it.
No rebuilding path will be easy, but it actually if fun to get a college player’s name and then follow up on him in school.
Did bs tank last game. Well how about calling a timeout or fouling for a 2 shot then winning by 1. The laker players deserved more than scott coached. Worst coach with a string of losing record
Thew Lakers could take a big step forward this summer if they keep their pick and spend some of their cap space. I’m curious to know if folks think the Lakers will aggressively try to improve this summer (spend) or roll cap space forward to the summer of 2016.
The draft Pick: Its hard to think that the team could be bad enough next season to attempt to keep their 2016 1st round pick (top 3 protected). So, in my mind its safe to assume if we keep our pick this summer we’ll have the pick to PHX next summer. Its tempting to use Kobe as cover again next year, not make any moves, play the kids and try and keep that pick as well. But like I said, I can’t imagine us being bad enough next year to be a lock at the top three.
The cap space: If Jim keeps to his elite or bust approach then there’s a chance we roll cap space forward to 2016. With a top 5 pick, a healthy Randle to go with a developing Clarkson there could be enough talent there to make demonstrable progress without spending cap space.
However, my sense is that after two dismal years it may be time to make deliberate moves to get better. I think fans, season ticket holders and TWC will press for a little spending (Greg Monroe and or Reggie Jackson) to push this
we have gone over that ground endless times and those comments don’t add anything to the Laker discussion any more – we have all heard it.
Sure, and we have also all heard your fact-challenged defenses of the FO and your complaints about other posters countless times.
Also, there are people here–and you are the loudest one of the bunch–who have insisted repeatedly and often somewhat confrontationally, that the team and organization are in better shape than the “nabobs of negativity”, to use bryan s’ memorable phrase, have said. However, with the team sitting at 13-36 and Kobe done for the year again, that seems to have pretty much ended. So you might consider the possibility that if you stop trying to spin the team’s current situation into something that it isn’t, there will be fewer reminders that the team and the franchise are in very bad shape.
bryan S. says
rr:( “Into the Fray”–not really.) Reading Craig W @11:22 and I’m not sure why you are in such a lather. Craig has a right to express his weariness with the downer narratives, and in turn, to express why he likes the forward looking posts. He says that “no rebuilding is easy” (tacitly acknowledging we are in a bad place), so I don’t think he’s “spinning” anything. He’s going to call it as he sees it, as will you. . . .
rr:( “Into the Fray”–not really.) Reading Craig W @11:22 and I’m not sure why you are in such a lather
Not in a lather at all, and yes, of course, Craig has a right to post anything DS allows him to post here. One guy calls the shots at FBG, and it isn’t me.
But your characterization of the situation is both biased and inaccurate. Craig has, for years, been vociferously and repetitively defending the FO and criticizing fans in general and other posters whom he sees as being ignorant/too negative etc. Given where the team actually is and what its prospects are, he (and you) might want to shift into a lower gear on that stuff at some point. You are sympathetic to that POV because you in many respects share it, and have, as I noted, mocked people who do not share your more positive outlook, and you have in fact called me out personally on the issue more than once.
Darius Soriano says
been vociferously and repetitively defending the FO
I think this is a mischaracterization of his comments, honestly. Craig has been more of a commenter who gives the benefit of the doubt to the front office, but has pointed out that they’ve made mistakes too and where he’s not agreed with them. Is it completely balanced? No, but he’s much more balanced than those who rail on Jim Buss daily, calling for his resignation/for the Busses to sell the team.
I’ve said this 100 times, but most of where the Lakers are now requires contextual looks at mult-layered events that can’t just be explained by one thing. I think a lot of people would either 1). not acknowledge that or 2). not have to provide that context all the time and so their comments skew towards more black and white. I choose not to comment as much because there’s only so many times you can say the same thing. At least, that’s how I feel. A lot of people on this board clearly do not feel that way. Haha.
bryan S. says
rr: I haven’t paid attention to the long history–that doesn’t excite me. But Craig didn’t spin anything in *this* post–so saying he did simply isn’t true. You are rehashing history to discredit his post. I find that intellectually dishonest.
“Given where the team actually is and what its prospects are, he (and you) might want to shift into a lower gear at some point.”
Why? Because you think you understand the current reality better than I do? Because a somber tenor suits your temperament and you wish others to adopt it?
I think there are a lot of knowledge fans here who know exactly where the team is at, and in spite of the difficulties ahead, are keen to be a part of the way forward as Laker fans.
>Because you think you understand the current reality better than I do?
Yeah, actually, but that is not really the point, since everybody thinks s/he knows what s/he is talking about; otherwise, they wouldn’t be posting. You obviously think you understand the current reality better than I do, otherwise; you wouldn’t post stuff disagreeing with me.
>Because a somber tenor suits your temperament and you wish others to adopt it?
Every time you bag on someone for being too negative, as you have done repeatedly, (like when you called me “Eeyore” last week) that is exactly what you are doing. And to answer this:
Because you are in effect telling other people how to be fans. Not your call, nor your place. You are neither a boss nor a big shot here; you are just another guy with some opinions. And that is what I think you need to gear down on. You want to be optimistic? Go for it. But you really shouldn’t question or bag on other’s people fandom/knowledge etc. if they think the Lakers are drowning in deep water and will be fighting for air for awhile, especially given the team’s roster situation.
Also, neither you nor I are going to “part of the way forward” as fans. The team will either get better or it won’t, and you and I will be watching and talking about it either way.
As to what DS said:
Craig specifically said once that he is “here to support the FO and ownership.” So I think that answers that. But the real issue with Craig for me is the constant bagging on the ignorance of fans, and the lectures on how we should say this or that (or not) about the FO and his endless complaining about such, often unprovoked, as he did again here in this thread. I should probably just ignore it, and have at times, but he usually brings it in on his own–as was the case again here.