Los Angeles Lakers vs Oklahoma City ThunderTue Mar 24, 8:00 PM EST – TNT Line: OKC -10.5, O/U: 212.0 Chesapeake Energy Arena – Oklahoma City, OK Recent Matchups |
|
Ranks
|
Latest Results |
Leaders
|
|
|
Ranks
|
Latest Results |
Leaders
|
|
The Lakers start a 5 game road trip today, heading to Oklahoma City to face the fighting-for-their-playoff-lives Thunder. OKC is currently 2.5 games up on the 9th seeded Suns and 3 games up on the 10th seeded Pelicans. With only 12 games left, the light at the end of the tunnel is getting brighter for the Thunder, but any slips and decline in play over these final 3 weeks of the season could see them replaced in the playoff mix by one of the two teams below them.
That is not very likely, however, and that is mostly because of one Russell Westbrook. Even though the Thunder made some impressive maneuvers at the trade deadline to remake their bench, it has been Westbrook who has carried the team in every imaginable way, scoring at an obscene rate while putting up triple doubles like crazy. The former Bruin now leads the league in scoring and is must watch basketball every night simply to see how his combination of physical superiority combined with incredible will make for highlight after highlight.
While I give Westbrook the lion’s share of the credit, he is not winning games by himself. As Durant’s foot issues linger and keep him out of games and a recent knee issue with Serge Ibaka, the aforementioned trades that fortified OKC’s roster have being paying off a great deal. Enes Kanter has been revitalized after leaving the Jazz, flashing the scoring and rebounding ability that landed him in the high lottery. DJ Augustin has been steady as a back up PG (replacing Reggie Jackson) and playing next to Westbrook in some lineups. Mitch McGary, though already on the team, has also found some minutes in the big man rotation and been fantastic as an energy player who can score inside, run the floor, and rebound the ball.
All of this has added up to a dangerous team who is playing well. Their ceiling is not what it would be if Durant and Ibaka were healthy, but with Russ playing at this level and the role players all showing their worth, they are winning games on offense and doing just enough on defense to not get behind.
On the Lakers’ end, they are coming off a win of their own, downing the terrible 76ers on Sunday. They look to carry that momentum forward tonight, though will try to do so without head coach Byron Scott who remains in Los Angeles tending to family business following the passing away of his mother. Scott has endured a lot this year on the court via his team’s struggles, but the loss of a parent is on another level entirely. I wish him and his family nothing but the best in their time of mourning. Hopefully, for him, his team plays well for him in his absence.
Where you can watch: 5:00pm start time on TWC Sportsnet. Also listen at ESPN Radio 710AM Los Angeles.
Calvin Chang says
I smell a blowout… Hopefully the first Asian-American starting backcourt in NBA history does not cower when Triple Double Russ roars in rage. If I were Jeremy or JC, I’d pull down Russ’ shorts when he’s not looking. Maybe he’ll lose it. That will be entertaining to watch.
Aaron says
Robert,
Yes there have been some forms of salary cap for decades. That is why the Lakers have always had to rebuild after their dynasties. In football Real Madrid and company are great every year.
Ko says
Resting Hill/Boozer for playoffs?
Tra says
Sweet move Clarkson .. Real sweet
Joel says
Clarkson is BALLIN
Tim says
Nice game by Clarkson, first Lakers player in a while to score 30 points in a game.
Stuart says
@ Todd — I saw your comment on the previous post about how ESPN viewed our FO. I think the quotes from the various writers were spot on. To me it feels like the FO is stagnant — not sure what direction to go (do we try to win, appear like we’re trying to win, do we lose but try to look good losing…).
There are some on the board that defend the FO and discount the numerous recent errors as an inevitable down cycle that every franchise must endure before rising from the ashes. I am becoming increasingly concerned about the Lakers future. Given our tradition and location optimism usually wins out. However, I think there are enough red flags about our FO to be less than confident looking forward.
In the last six months ESPN has run a number of rankings about NBA franchises — the Lakers have finished in the bottom 5 in all of them.
1) Likelyhood to win a Championsip by 2019
2) Future NBA Power Rankings (multidimensional assessment of NBA teams)
3) Use of Analytics (bottom in not only NBA rankings but all sports as well)
4) Rankings of NBA FOs
Even if you consider ESPN to be a bunch if hacks, this is a telling commentary about how our team management/FO is perceived and what our performance has earned them. I have said this previously and I think it bears repeating. At some point Jeanie is going to have to take control of the Lakers and demand results. Jim is in charge of basketball operations– it’s under his watch that the Lakers have fallen to historic lows.
At some point good intentions and trying really, really hard have to give way to the bottom line. Wins still matter in this league.
KenOak says
Excited about Clarkson. Good game in a much needed loss. Next year could be a fun year with Clarkson, Randle, and draft pick plus a healthy Kobe in his last season!
KenOak says
@Stuart
Meh. Sportswriters are extremely fickle. Especially the ones at ESPN. Before last year, everyone was calling for Jerry Jones to step down as GM or sell the Cowboys. Now, after winning Exec of the year, he is looked upon as being saavy again. I’m not one of the posters that blindly believes in our FO, but I do tend to want to give the benefit of the doubt after a couple of moves backfired. (And the Veto.)
George says
Stuart- I might be a bit more optimistic than you. However, I do agree that we aren’t dealing with the forces of nature causing the Lakers’ downfall. The reason is simple — bad basketball decisions (a lot of them).
Obviously, Jeanie’s going to give Jim/Mitch more time (3 years worth). Let’s hope that the FO has learned their lessons — because starting this summer they are going to gave to start getting things right.
Mid-Wilshire says
For those few of you who may still be JC skeptics, let the record show that Jordan Clarkson just had the following game (in 36:23):
30 pts. (on 12-19 shooting)
7 assists
4 rebounds
3 blocks
1 steal
3 TOs
And he did that playing against Russell Westbrook, probably the leading MVP candidate in the NBA who is playing at the pinnacle of his abilities.
I’ll say it again, Clarkson did this against Westbrook. And next year he’ll be better. He’ll be bigger, stronger, smarter, and better.
That’s something to think about.
Ko says
Stuart and other posters.
What makes you think Jeannie has any clue in running a basketball franchise. People tell me she often is not in the office and the decision to sign Kobe while still injured was hers. If your basing it on her boyfriend first it’s aganist NBA rules to meddle and Phil has shown more questionable decision so far in NY then Jimmy.
I for one see nothing that shows her to be the answer. Your ESPN numbers seem to validate my concerns as she appears to be in LALa land as this ship has sunk the past 3 years. Didn’t hear her yelling about the Pau/Dwight walk away. Did hear her on radio talking about wanting Kobe to play 3 more years.! Delusional? Dreamer? Or just way over her head? Maybe she should fire herself and go join Phil.
bryan S. says
Mid-W: Two of Clarkson’s blocks were on Westbrook. Great stats for Clarkson in an admittedly matador d contest. (I wonder if Aaron still thinks his ceiling is back-up pg?)
the other Stephen says
Zach Randolph to Ed Davis after watching Jordan Clarkson: “Ed, who’s that?” Davis: “He nice, right?”
BigCitySid says
– The horrible front office ranking of the Lakers should surprise no one. They are guilty of overestimating who they are. And they got got even worst than last year, lol.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12541459/nba-front-office-rankings-2015
-Lakers, Knicks, and Nets. oh my.
Stuart says
@ KO — if true about Jeanie then the Lakers are in serious trouble. It’s the blind leading the blind. The Buss kids are on the verge of making the most storied franchise in sports a mockery. There is far too much evidence to discount the red flags. Absent any meaningful changes — business as usual means they just don’t get it or don’t really care to.
Let’s hope a light bulb still flickers in the FO and they let Mitch lead them out if this mess. He might be the only one there with enough basketball sense to move this forward.
Kevin says
the other Stephen Zach Randolph to Ed Davis after watching Jordan Clarkson: “Ed, who’s that?” Davis: “He nice, right?”
—
All the NBA GMs to Mitch Kupchak after watching the Lakers fall so hard and fast from elite status: “Mitch, are those Buss kids for real.” Kupchak: “Don’t ask.”
Craig W. says
…and the ‘talking heads’ are real reporters…sure they are. Their job is to gather ‘hits’ and ‘eyeballs’.
The CBA made sure the Lakers were going to fall hard – it was designed to – and the owner being on his deathbed, insuring a longer learning curve for his son, sure didn’t help matters along. I don’t say to give the front office a ‘pass’, but there isn’t one of us who didn’t need experience to get better at our jobs – regardless what they were.
Baylor Fan says
What happened to the Lakers rebounding? Granted the near absence of defense led to high shooting % and fewer boards, but to lose that battle 49-28?
Robert says
Ko: Jeanie does not have to understand how to run basketball operations. All she has to do is put people in charge of it who do understand. Obviously, I am disappointed that she is not being more aggressive in that regard, but who knows how tightly her hands are tied by the structure of the trust and the power her brother has.
Craig W: ” insuring a longer learning curve for his son” OK – so we are on the same page that as of now – Jim Buss runs the Lakers. As for the learning curve: If someone is new and “learning” on the job, they should not maximize their responsibilities. They should let others do the job and “learn”. When people want to deal with the Heat, they call Pat Riley they do not call Nick Arison. I do not like nepotism, but the way the Heat is handling their transfer of power looks like they watched us make mistakes and “learned”.
CBA: I am not sure why people feel that the CBA was designed to stop the Lakers. The CBA – like all caps the NBA has ever had, allows teams to retain their own players and pay them more than anyone else can. It also allows you to greatly exceed the cap by paying taxes. Most teams can’t afford this. We can – which is a huge advantage for us. The CBA works well if you have a few superstars to whom you pay huge salaries, and then you surround them with youngsters and vagabonds. This is the formula the Lakers have used for decades. No reason we can’t use it now – we are just not executing.
rr says
insuring a longer learning curve for his son
___
One of Jim’s big selling points is his lengthy apprenticeship under West, Kupchak, and his dad, and his most vocal defenders around the net often cite this as the primary reason that he is qualified for the job. As per Wikipedia:
Buss started with the Lakers in 1998 as an apprentice to general manager Jerry West and Mitch Kupchak.Buss continued to learn the basketball business from his father as well as West and then Kupchak, who was promoted to general manager in 2000.
So, like almost all of the arguments you make defending the FO, this one is very weak.
Todd says
Craig W: If you don’t like the rankings offered up by ESPN because they are ‘talking heads and reporters’ looking to increase viewership let’s look at the empirical evidence of where the Lakers are. Borrowing the list provided by rr:
No. We criticize the FO because:
a) They have made some very questionable decisions.
b) They have put the two worst teams in franchise history on the floor in back-to-back seasons.
c) The future looks like it could be very bleak.
__
You mentioned the CBA as being designed to sabotage the Lakers. Dr. Buss and Jerry West never complained about the CBA – they made it work to the Lakers’ advantage. The new CBA made draft picks and young controllable talent more important, it put a premium on obtaining these assets. It forced teams to look hard at who they were spending money on and how much they were spending and how long the contract should be. In other words it made it necessary for GMs to understand basketball so the right decisions could be made.
You also mention that Dr Buss death forced an accelerated learning curve on Jim. Per Wikipedia, Jim began working for his dad by managing the Buss family’s indoor soccer league in 1985. When the team folded he ran his dad’s horse racing business until it became un-profitable in 1997. In 1998 Jim joined his dad with the Lakers as an apprentice GM to Jerry West and Mitch Kupchak. At the time of Dr. Buss’ death (in 2013) Jim had been with the team, in an FO capacity, for 15 years. At a minimum, Jim had been groomed to take over for the previous 5 years.
George, above put it very succinctly. No matter what excuses you make, the Lakers are a mess and ‘the reason is simple — bad basketball decisions (a lot of them)’.
Aaron says
Bryan s,
I said Clarksons ceiling was good back up PG. And that’s a very good player. NBA PG is the deepest spot in the league. And yes he could be a bad starting PG. But if you want him to help your team… At back up PG he is a plus. Rememeber … He is already 22 years old. He isn’t going to get that much better.
rr says
Couple of other things:
>I am glad Clarkson is doing well and providing a little hope.
>Again, the defenses of the FO are:
1. The Veto of the Paul trade.
2. The fact that from 2009-2013 the Lakers engaged in a lot of short-horizon moves designed to get Kobe and Dr. Buss one more chance to plant the flag at the top of the mountain.
These are real and substantive issues and in some respects are not about Jim Buss’ tenure at the top. That said, I think there are a lot of reasons to question the way everything has been handled both during the year Howard was here and in the two subsequent seasons after that, in that the minus decisions, and the decisions that need to be explained over and over, have outnumbered the solid decisions.
In addition to that, image and optics matter, and there are a lot of negative optics around the Lakers right now. The only way to change that is to make decisions that work and lead to winning and building the talent base.
rr says
He is already 22 years old. He isn’t going to get that much better.
—
This is a key point. Clarkson is only 19 months younger than John Wall and turns 23 in June. So, that limits his ceiling. He has done very well, but I think on a good team, he would be a third guard, playing 25-30 MPG.
gene says
22 is young…You never know when you have reached your top level.WRT FO…..Randle,Clarkson and a top 5 pick is a good start for next season……..
Vasheed says
The Lakers have been very open to what the strategy is by virtue of whom they have tried to sign. Last year they held off doing any moves until Melo and LeBron were off the table. I didn’t think it was a good idea for last offseason and they got caught trying to salvage a bad situation. They picked up a pick and Lin before the Bosh to Houston plan imploded. They went about shoring up their roster mostly from within and picking up Boozer off waivers and later Black. I think they did about as well as could be expected after the fact of having the wrong plan to begin with.
I expect them to roll out the same plan this year and could possibly expect better results. They could well have a number of picks to get fresh talent as well as the free cash with Nash and other expiring contracts to come off the books to sign 2 plus quality guys. However, the question remains who? With the 2016 CBA lurking there may not be that many guys the Lakers should sign for Max dollars and considering they went after guys like Rondo they could very well go that route this summer offering contracts they should never offer. I expect the team to be better but the difference between mild improvement and playoff bound hinges on how well the Lakers spend their money.
I don’t put much in Jeanie to the rescue. This is the woman who didn’t understand the difference between handing over the 6th pick this year vs the 25th pick next year. I get the argument she just has to replace Jim with someone that can do the job but, I think the Jeanie factor is overrated.
As for Clarkson, I think if he can work on the turnover to assist ratio he would be a starting PG. Considering the PG’s the Lakers have had in recent years and that he was selected in the 2nd round Clarkson has been a real gem. The Lakers could very well wind up drafting a better PG this year but the development of Clarkson this year has been a step in the right direction for the team.
Todd says
I have no problem if Clarkson ends up being our third guard. That makes him a top 6th or 7th best player on a good team. Championship teams certainly go 8 or 9 deep with talent. As an example, OKC uses their third guards (Harden, Jackson and Waiters) to great effect and they have often filled in for starters without the team missing a beat.
This summer the Lakers are one of the few teams with cap space. I advocate that they should be very aggressive this off-season with free agency as every team has the potential of having their cap increase $20 + million during the summer of 2016.
I would advocate going after Brandon Knight (or Reggie Jackson) knowing it would push Clarkson to the third guard role. Obviously, if we get Mudiay or Russell we may re-think that approach – although Russell may be best as a Two at the next level and Mudiay has the size to be a Two.
Aaron says
The only player the Lakers should sign to a big deal this summer is Kawaii Leanord. He can be the third max player on a champiknshop team. If he is your fourth best player you have a dynasty.
Darius Soriano says
I think the biggest disconnect among fans who criticize the front office is the simple fact that people can know what they’re doing and things still not work out for them regarding their decisions.
Back in February of 2006, Bill Simmons wrote a column called “The 1st Annual Atrocious GM Summit”. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060224
Mitch Kupchak was one of the “atrocious” GM’s featured in that column. Two years later, the Lakers were making a surprise push after Andrew Bynum came into his own and then Mitch made a master-stroke of a move and traded for Pau Gasol. Three Finals appearances and two titles later, Mitch is one of the most respected GM’s in the league.
I don’t know how good Jim is at his job. I really don’t. But, to me, there is enough evidence that he knows what he’s doing to not insult his intelligence as so many on this board do on a daily basis. Many of the front office’s decisions lately have not worked out. The Paul trade, the Dwight acquisition/departure, the Nash Trade, the Kobe extension. Of those, however, I’d argue the only one that was truly questionable at the time it happened was the Kobe deal. I would also argue that it’s not difficult to see the reasoning behind any of these moves.
The rest of the deals (Hill’s contract, Young’s contract, etc) are mostly just fodder; they are the shaping of the role players in the short/intermediate term while the organization rebuilds from the fallout of those other decisions not working. I know some think I give the FO a pass, but as I’ve said repeatedly, I think their mistakes have mostly been in the hiring of coaches, not in their ability to recognize and/or acquire talent. The fact that in consecutive summers the team actually traded for Chris Paul, Steve Nash, and Dwight Howard is actually quite astonishing from a “gettable asset” standpoint. Things didn’t work out and that’s a major bummer.
But, in the end, I see the team as being on the right path moving forward — for the most part. Should they retain their pick they should have another very good young talent, some cap space this summer, and a boatload of cap space the Summer of 2016. They are far away from being a good team now, but I think they can utilize the pick (should they retain it) and the cap space over the next two summers to build a real winner. Time will tell.
Calvin Chang says
Darius nailed it.
Calvin Chang says
One more point I want to add – this is America, Lakers are a business, and Buss kids own majority of the business. Unfortunately, whether Jim is clueless or genius, making decisions or just laughing and literally sleeping on his money, he can do whatever he wants. He’s not legally accountable to us fans. If we want to hurt him, other than pelting him with rotten produce, the best way is to tune out. Don’t buy tickets or merchandise that will give him more money. Believe me, if the Lakers are losing money, that will light a fire up his but.
Todd says
Darius: Yes, I think you give the FO too much of a pass. However, that’s what makes this site so great — it’s a place where Lakers fans can go to exchange different points of view. I’m sure we haven’t seen the last of this debate.
Darius Soriano says
Todd,
Maybe. I’d add that most frustration around the team now is mostly because they’ve been losing a ton. I’d say, however, that most of my frustration is actually tied to how they handled the most recent coaching changes and not necessarily the losses. This site was born in late 2004 right at the dawn of a rough period for the franchise. Yes, they had a prime Kobe, but the tear down of a title team was happening and the lean years were beginning. So, in a way, what’s going on today isn’t entirely new. The depths of the decline are new, but not the template of having to remake a team. I wish we had a prime Kobe to cheer for, though. Haha.
My point is that, after the 2009 and 2010 titles and trying to push for more in the immediate years following, the team was going to bottom out. The core of that team was all at the relative same stage of their careers — the only exception was Bynum. The key to avoiding a full scale rebuild was to acquire true star level players — thus the pursuit of Paul and Howard. As noted earlier, that didn’t work out, but the FO did make it happen (however short lived it was).
My other point is that this FO doesn’t have the gravitas that Dr. Buss had and, from a perception standpoint, that hurts them. They do not get the benefit of the doubt and that, too, hurts them. At least from a perception standpoint. I wish I had a better handle on some of what they were actually doing. I can take a stab at what I think they’re doing, but I can’t know for sure. When it was prime Kobe and Phil at the helm, it was easier to trust the direction of the team. They don’t have that now and they suffer for it.
We’ll see if they can get back to that point. As I said, time will tell.
Calvin Chang says
One question from yesterday’s game: Is Kanter really that good? Or are the Laker bigs just bad? It looks like Russ and Kanter executed that pick and roll with surgical precision. I was impressed with the execution of the double high screen and roll. Russ top of key, Kanter Adams setting picks. Once the Laker big thought about trapping Russ, Kanter instantly rolled, got the crisp pass from Russ, then glided to the rim easily for the score. They did it again and again. Kanter seems to possess Aaron’s favorite trait – coordination. Maybe he should get a max offer. He’s only 21.
Robert says
Todd: Exactly – this site is the only place in Laker Nation where civilize debate actually takes place. Kudos Darius and all the posters.
Darius: You mention the Paul trade, the DH saga, the Nash trade and the KB deal as having “not worked out”. You also state that the process and hiring of the three coaches is questionable. Those are basically the largest 7 decisions of the Jim Buss era and they have not worked. Could they have all been well thought out and smart, and then gone sour due to bad luck? Yes – it is conceivable, but just like losing poker players. Some are unlucky, but most are simply bad players. In my case, I do not care that Jim could be intelligent. I care about results. I would not want Albert Einstein as our GM either. Jim is certainly a better GM than everyone on this site (except for rr of course), but that means nothing. We need our GM to be one of the best in the league. And does the way we evaluate people not apply to player and coaches as well? Is Byron an idiot? He has coached in the league for 14 years, so he must know something about basketball. Many still like to criticize him. And at times he deserves it. And so does Jim. And the later has had a lot more to do with the Lakers situation than the former.
bryan S. says
Aaron: How old was Steve Nash when he entered the league? 22, and he was hardly alone among players who became very good (starters) to great players with little or no fanfare out of the draft. I acknowledge that predicting upside based on age is a valuable indicator, but it is hardly a perfect metric, as the example of Nash shows. Other factors weigh in to the equation. Clarkson has elite size, speed, quickness, and explosiveness. Excellent finishing ability. Great motor. Good but not great handle and shooting– both are improving.
Why wasn’t he drafted higher? The easy answer is that he shot very poorly his senior year, (apparently he was not himself after his father was diagnosed with cancer), and was seen as more of a combo guard than point guard, as he was learning the point position on the fly. But there were indicators that he might be a steal. Particularly his play against top teams such as Kentucky, where he showed his competitive drive and athleticism.
But here is what will make him a starter, and a very good one at that: his intelligence and drive. Like Nash and Kobe, he is keenly intelligent and driven. Kobe said Clarkson is a sponge, and Nash said he is a great pupil. As Stu has repeatedly pointed out, he just keeps getting better and better.
Aaron, I respect your scouting acumen. I have had almost the exact takes as you have on various and sundry players (Love, Okafor etc.). But here is where we part ways. When Clarkson becomes a top tier starter, I will schedule you a visit an ophthalmologist Ha.
Darius Soriano says
Robert,
I think your position is basically, as you said, that you “care about results”. That is fine. But, I also care about process and pretty firmly believe that if you follow a good process, over the long haul, the results will be there. You cite poker a lot, but I’d imagine most poker players think the way that I think in that argument of process and results. Over the long haul, I want the Lakers leveraging their assets to try and acquire top players at their positions, I want them taking short term risks that can turn into long term boons. The fact is, some of the recent decisions have not worked out. But I’d argue for the process of trading for Paul, Dwight, and, yes, even Nash again and again.
As for the coaching stuff, I said early on that I did not like the process they employed in their search. And one of my major critiques of Scott’s isn’t the losses (the result), but rather the process used in which those losses were obtained. That you don’t seem to care much about the process is perfectly fine, it’s just not an approach I’d take and one I pretty much disagree with on general principle. So, it is what it is.
Calvin Chang says
Fans like us are just spoiled with success. Darius is right – FO Jim is being hammered now and laughed at by ESPN ratings and talking heads because Lakers are just losing now. But if there is a FO GM summit, and Jim and Mitch have martinis with ESPN-blessed geniuses like Daryl Morey, Sam Presti, Sam Hinkie. etc. Jim and Mitch can look them in the eye and ask them “how many rings have you nerds got?” Seriously. For all the success Clips, Grizz and OKC have, how many rings do they have?
Calvin Chang says
On a side note, I do have big respect for Grizz owner Robert Pera. He’s a billionaire team owner and business man, and has game. Watching clips of his workout, he’s got a good-looking jumper and can drive left or right with ease. I’d love to play him one on one for team ownership. If he beats me, he can have my beat-up car.
Aaron says
Bryan s,
I hope you’re right. I just think you’re seeing with your heart and not your eyes though. Maybe it’s because the Lakers haven’t had a good Starting PG since Nick the Quick. I will gladly admit I am wrong. I have been wrong once about a player… I thought Curry would be an average NBA PG. Hard to predict with shooters. I didn’t think he had the coordination he has. To shoot off the dribble the way he does. Even to finish in the lane like he does. He is steve Nash on steroida with his coordination and game.
bryan S. says
Aaron: Good reply. For the record, I missed on Curry too.
Calvin Chang says
Bryan S: I also thought Steph Curry would just be an average PG. I never thought a 3pt set shooter would ever be an allstar. But Steph is a different breed of shooter. I have never seen anyone shoot with as much variety and range and accuracy. Steph’s release is so quick, and he can do it on the move, pull up, off the curl, left, right, off a cross-over, anywhere within 30 feet. His shot is like a cirque du soleil show. Combined with his smarts, creativity, playmaking – it’s ridiculous.
rr says
the example of Nash shows.
___
Nash’s entire career was an outlier in pretty much every possible way. I hope that you are right about Randle and Clarkson, because, basically, if you’re not, Jim Buss’ three-year clock is going to expire on him. You are looking good on Clarkson so far. But citing Nash is not the way to back up a Clarkson-rocks case and neither is stuff about intelligence and drive, unless you have inside information on Clarkson’s daily work habits, support system, and personality.
If things work out for Clarkson IMO, he will be like a somewhat better version of George Hill, who also was in the league as a rookie at 22. If Clarkson turns into a top-tier starter, that would make a difference for the Lakers.
R says
I thought about Curry too when Aaron mentioned Clarkson wouldn’t get much better beyond age 22.
Not to say Aaron is wrong; just that I think we’ll know much more about Clarkson if he gets a full year under his belt next season.
It seems to me Lilliard improved after 22 as well.
Aaron says
R,
22 rooks improve… Not close to as much as 19 year olds do. That’s what we are talking about.
rr says
Sure, but Lillard and Curry were both lottery picks and Lillard was actually good as a rookie.
For a guy Clarkson’s age chosen where Clarkson was to turn into a very good starter would be pretty unusual. Maybe he can do it; he is certainly going to get a chance. It is nice that Kobe and Nash praised him, but there is a lot more to intelligence and drive than stuff like that.
Anonymous says
Regarding the whole discussion about the FO: I think some of you are more concerned about “being right” about how the Lakers will someday get to the top stop, than having this team actually make it back to the top. To that end, there is a very vocal group here that will not, under any circumstance, support the idea that the FO will right this ship. Even if it happens, I can see some of you here saying that “it was just luck.” But one thing is clear, if what you are “hoping for” is for a new FO, then what you are really “hoping for” is that the Lakers do not bounce back for AT LEAST another decade. Does it not make more sense to hope that the current FO makes it work sooner rather than later?
Chris J says
ESPN polls and its “journalists” and their click-bait columns are just fodder for discussion, nothing more. With a lot of air time and Internet pages to fill, they’re forced to come up with content, and crap like the “Worst GM Survey” is no more meaningful than Chris Berman telling people who will win an NFL game on Sunday or Mel Kiper predicting what NFL draft picks will flourish. At the end of the day, they don’t really know too much more than anyone else, and certainly not when pretending to cover any one of several major leagues.
The beat writers, those who are around the teams day-in and day-out, are more worthy of our time, but the best of those don’t go around pretending they know everything that every team is doing. A Lakers’ beat writer may not know much more about Orlando or Toronto, for example, but he/she is worth listening to when the topic involves the Lakers.
A food analogy is comparable: some sports writers are like world-class chefs, and their work is rare and sophisticated, worthy of attention and praise. Others are line cooks at Taco Bell or Carl’s Jr. And if you look around most cities, there are a helluva lot more fast-food places than five-star restaurants, but that doesn’t mean we should treat their cooking equally.
rr says
As to the FO, I think there is more evidence against them than there is for them. They did not do a very good job assembling the back end of the roster on the 2012 and 2013 teams, making some decisions that were clearly bad initially (Kapono/Green, Murphy, Duhon) and others that were questionable and didn’t work (Ebanks, Morris, Jamison). The 2012 team did about as well as could be expected anyway because Kobe, Pau, and Bynum all stayed healthy.
The roster construction of the post-Dwight teams seems to reflect an unwillingness to deal with how bad things are. The KBros have suggested that the Lakers are like a family in a rich neighborhood that has lost all their money with bad investments but is still hiring maids and gardeners to keep up appearances. The last two teams both have elements that would suggest that is the case.
And I don’t agree with writing off stuff like Nick Young’s deal as “mostly just fodder.” No FO nails every decision, but when you are building ground up, you need to make good use of your resources and take mid-range and small decisions very seriously. the money that they are spending on Young would be better spent elsewhere. And the cap is going up for everybody, not just for the Lakers.
rr says
As to Anonymous’ post at 215 PM:
I am not ready to give up on Jim Buss, but as I said in the post just before this one (has not made it past the bot yet) I think there is a strong case against him.
But I would much rather be wrong about him and have the Lakers be good again quickly than the other way around. If the 2018 Lakers are kicking donkey and taking names lead by Jordan Clarkson, All-Star Julius Randle, Emmanuel Mudiay, Anthony Davis and two other FAs, I will be quite pleased to give Jim Buss, Aaron, bryan s, and Craig W all appropriate credit and props. Right now, though, I don’t see that as being very likely to happen.
Robert says
Darius: Good discussion While I favor results over process, I do not discount process. Let me use jump shooting rather than poker. If a guy is 0-7 (the seven major decisions we discussed above), he might have had a bad night, but he also might simply be a bad shooter. You are saying the shot looked pure but did not go in on items like the Paul trade or the DH acquisition.. However you also say that the Lakers showed bad shooting form on the three coaching decisions and perhaps the Kobe deal. So in summary the shooter is 0-7 and on half of the shots he showed bad form. Not very encouraging until we see a coupe of shots actually go trough the hoop.
Anon: There is no being right here. There is only misery for Laker fans. I have been slamming the FO for years, so does this mean I am right? At what point will I be right? You do bring up good point, which is similar to the tank argument. I want titles for the Lakers as soon as possible. If Jim gets lucky and somehow wins a title next year I would love admit I was wrong about him. However do I want to invest the next decade in seeing if he can do it? No. My nightmare is that Jim does just well enough to keep his job but nowhere near enough to get us a title. This is no different than tank commanders whose nightmare is 8th place. Not sure how long you have been reading this site, but I started my complaints about the FO in 2011-2012 when we had the “6th” best team in the league. Like I said – there is no being right on this. There are only unhappy Laker fans with differing opinions as to how we got here and how we will get out of this.
the other Stephen says
There were quite a few great plays last night. I loved this one, where Clarkson drew three defenders into the same small area, kept his dribble alive, and cut his way to the basket: http://stats.nba.com/game/#!/0021401056/playbyplay/#play144~
Darius Soriano says
I have talked with both Andy and Brian Kamenetzky about the Lakers FO and agree with a lot of what they say. My point to them was that I could guess what I think they are doing, but I really would only be guessing. The plan is muddied, for sure and isn’t helped when Jeannie and Jim go on the record talking — especially together — as they tend to either over or under explain things in a way that only cause more questions. As has been noted, this contributes to their perception problem.
As for Young, I agree in that I would have liked the deal to be shorter and/or for less money. I also would have preferred a team option rather than a player option on the final year. But, just because the cap is going up for everyone doesn’t mean its affects on Young’s deal aren’t real. And when new deals are signed with that larger cap and players of Young’s ilk are, as they are likely to, paid more money, the impact of Young’s deal will be lessened (this would be true if other players of his ilk don’t actually make more either; Young is locked in at his salary and when the cap jumps, the impact of his deal diminishes – it’s just the math).
As for the point about there being more evidence against the FO than for them, it’s a debatable point. The back end of the 2012-13 roster could just as easily be argued against with the shrewd pick ups of guys like Ariza and Shannon Brown who helped win championships in 2009 and 2010. These moves were made by the same people. It should also be pointed out that, before the new TWC deal, the Lakers typically operated within a payroll of a little over $100 million and, with that, as the star players’ salaries rose (as they did with Bynum’s extension and Kobe/Pau’s huge paydays), the FO likely cut costs on the back of the roster in the hope that their front line talent would win out. They did the same thing near the end of the early 2000’s three-peat when guys like Samaki Walker and Slava Medvedenko became rotation players as guys like Horry and Fox and others departed.
The larger point, to me however, remains: the Lakers have typically done a good job finding superstar level talent either in the draft, free agency, or via trades (or in Kobe’s case, 2 of the 3 at the same time). In the Paul/Howard deals, they were successful (kinda) in getting it done again. In the Nash trade, they tried again (on a bit of a lesser scale). This front office, from the time that Jerry West ran the show, has almost always sought out the elite of the elite and then shopped for impact role players who could compliment those guys. The reason why I called Hill/Young/etc fodder is that the superstar (not counting Kobe) is not here right now.
Now, during FA last year I strongly argued for the team to sign some mid-tier FA’s to make the team better which, in turn, should help them in the long run be a more desirable FA destination to bigger names. They didn’t go that route and I disagreed with that. But I can see why they wouldn’t go that route too — in fact RR made the argument himself that every $ should be well spent and as Aaron has argued many times the Lakers’ FA $ should probably go to top-tier players in order to attract the role players at bargain prices.
There’s really no one way to be successful in this league and, as I’ve said multiple times today, most of the complaining is because with all those ways to try and build a winner the team, right now, is still very bad. Once the team is no longer bad, the arguments and complaints will take on a different tone. Well, from everyone but KO. His tone is consistent. Haha.
bryan S. says
But citing Nash is not the way to back up a Clarkson-rocks case and neither is stuff about intelligence and drive, unless you have inside information on Clarkson’s daily work habits, support system, and personality.
I never suggested that I had inside info. As I explained, both Nash and Kobe cited Jordan’s intelligence. Not good enough for you? Doesn’t meet your standard of proof? Would an IQ test help? Whatever dude. As for the drive part, watch him play. Watch how he reacts to mistakes. Watch how hard he plays. It’s simple if you understand the game.
The league has countless examples of guys who had inauspicious draft positions and turned into very good starters. In fact, here’s an example of one right now whom the Lakers are rumored to covet: Khris Middleton, 39th pick, 2nd round.
rr says
>Not good enough for you? Doesn’t meet your standard of proof?
Nope. It is a piece of evidence, a small one. Shannon Brown said he learned a lot from Kobe, too. The fact that Kobe praised Clarkson is good, since Kobe is very candid, as we all know. Nash rarely says anything negative about anyone. We will see how Clarkson adjusts as time goes on and teams learn more about him.
>As for the drive part, watch him play. Watch how he reacts to mistakes. Watch how hard he plays.
A lot of guys play hard and learn from mistakes. Doesn’t make them All-stars or even very good starters.
>The league has countless examples of guys who had inauspicious draft positions and turned into very good starters.
Depends on how you are defining those terms. Just to take one list of players, almost all of the Top 80 guys in RPM were drafted in the first round. There are exceptions–Wesley Matthews, Manu Ginobili. But my point was simple: if Clarkson develops into as good a player as you seem to think he can, that would be an unusual career arc from where he started in terms of his age and draft position. It doesn’t mean it won’t happen, but it would be unusual. Incidentally, George Hill is 51st on that list, and he was chosen 26th.