I won’t pretend to put this game in any other context than what it means — potentially, at least — to the Lakers’ chances of keeping their top 3 protected pick this summer. Let’s face it, we can talk all we want about the development of the Lakers’ young players, Kobe’s retirement tour, or even smaller storylines of Larry Nance playing some SF for the rest of the year.
All those things bring context to these last 14 games and have meaning. I’m interested in what happens with all of them. But, as the season winds down, a bigger and bigger story is whether or not the Lakers will end up retaining this summer’s draft pick. The final answer to that will depend on numbered ping-pong balls drawn out of a machine. But the odds associated with that drawing will be dictated by win/loss record.
The Lakers currently have the 2nd worst record in the league. The team with the 3rd worst is tonight’s opponent, the Phoenix Suns. The Lakers are currently 4.0 games “ahead” of the Suns in keeping their spot and holding better odds of keeping their pick. Tonight’s game is one of two remaining games against the Suns. Wins against them matter more than wins against other teams since it automatically shaves a full game off that “lead”.
So, these games, against this team, matter a bit more towards the goal of retaining better lottery odds (which directly influences keeping the pick). All the games matter, of course, but acknowledging how these specific games go can impact things is not some made up story. It’s not about being on “team tank”, it’s the reality of the situation.
Now, how you want the Lakers to handle this is another story. Personally, I don’t think there’s much to actually do, here. Both of these teams are bad. Either team could lose this game simply by bringing the same effort they’ve brought for most of the year. There’s nothing special to be done, no extraordinary steps to take. It’s why these teams hold the worst records in the West.
The coach, though, will be trying to win. He said so himself. I’m guessing a lot of you hope that doesn’t happen. Based on what I wrote above, that’s perfectly understandable. Also know, though, that if it does it’s probably just par for the course for this year.
Where you can watch: 7:30pm start time on TWC Sportsnet. Also listen on ESPN Radio 710AM Los Angeles.
Ryan P says
Go tank commander!
R says
whatever happens, happens. The Lakers seem so clueless and have so many holes on and off the court I refuse to get too worked up about whether they play the lottery this year or have to wait until next year.
Clay Bertrand says
At least the league balanced it out and when we play Phx in Phx next Wed., WE will be on the second night of a back to back (like PHX is tonight) coming off of a game against Memphis. Now that Memphis game WOULD NORMALLY be a rubber stamped Loss to the Grizz. BUT these days, the GRIZZ look like the Lakers of a couple of seasons ago with half the team (the GOOD half) all injured. That game is even looking to be a toss up……..
I get a sick feeling when we win games like this one tonight……..
Alas, the pick is beyond our control ultimately but wins (unless against the Celtics) mean NOTHING at this point.
Vasheed says
The Lakers have 2 games against the Suns. If they lose 1 of the 2 they will pretty much lock up the 2nd worst record. I really hope next year we aren’t looking at the race to the bottom. Would be really nice to hand the Sixers a late first round pick next year.
BigCitySid says
-Have decided not to watch tonight.
Fern says
This tank battle is going to be bigger than the Battle of Kursk…
LordMo says
Tank now! And tank again in 2017!
Get picks develop the talent and own the league
Start Sacre, Black, Kelly, Swaggy, Huertas.
No one could out tank that starting 5!
J C says
When Commander Scott says he’s going to try to win, he winks. Then plays his favorite vets, Lou, Marcelo and MWP down the stretch.
After all, the youth has had “enough” experience in fourth quarters, after all.
Robert says
And there we have it at 5:09 PM on 03/18/2016. The first tank comment of the 2017 season.
Fern says
LordMo if we get the pick this season we lose next season’s so tanking next season if we get the pick this season is well, stupid. And with all the cap money the Lakers have this summer they have the capability to improve the team quite a bit if they don’t botch it. Im hoping for a win, we can get that loss back in Phoenix in a couple of days…
matt says
Fern…. next seasons pick 2017 is also top 3 protected, it’s 2018 that’s unprotected
Fern says
Matt is top 2 protected if we get it this year. Next season we would have a 1st rounder because you can trade 1st rounders in consecutive seasons…
matt says
We owe a 1st round pick to Phoenix
2016 top 3 protected
2017 top 3 protected
2018 unprotected
Sidenote Phoenix has traded this pick to philly
KevTheBold says
Williams needs to be benched. He likes to score against Phoenix and only cares about himself.
Bad time also for Huertas to show up.
But then again Scott is trying to save his job, which complicates the tanking situation.
That is unless his job depends upon the draft.
Tim says
Phoenix traded the Lakers pick to the 76ers.
Per realgm
2016 first round draft pick to Philadelphia
L.A. Lakers’ 1st round pick to Philadelphia (via Phoenix) protected for selections 1-3 in 2016 and 1-3 in 2017 and unprotected in 2018 [L.A. Lakers-Phoenix, 7/11/2012; Milwaukee-Philadelphia-Phoenix, 2/19/2015]
2018 first round draft pick to Orlando
If at least two years after the L.A. Lakers conveyed a 1st round pick to Philadelphia, then the L.A. Lakers’ 1st round pick to Orlando protected for selections 1-5 in 2018 and unprotected in 2019; if the L.A. Lakers have not conveyed a 1st round pick to Philadelphia by 2017, then the L.A. Lakers will instead convey their 2017 2nd round pick and 2018 2nd round pick to Orlando [L.A. Lakers-Orlando, 8/10/2012]
matt says
Fern answering your question, ,yes
See above
KO says
Thinking Bryon might win coach of the year.
Well coached group.
And he gets paid for this?
Clarksons value going down fast.
Fern says
It’s top 3 protected for 2016 and 2017, unprotected in 2018.
If the 2016 pick ends up going to the Sixers, the 2018 pick goes to Orlando, top 5 protected. If they keep the 2016 pick and the 2017 pick goes to the Sixers, then the 2019 pick goes to Orlando unprotected. If they keep both the 2016 pick and 2017 pick, 2017 and 2018 second round picks go to Orlando.
J C says
Byron cannot be given credit for any development, game strategy, instilling confidence or inspiring effort.
Even when motivated for brief periods this team is ineffective. Apparently even Phoenix in its current state of free-fall finds us beatable.
I’m happy that Byron respects Kobe and wears his Laker badge on his sleeve. But he’s truly, truly awful.
If Byron is retained it will cripple the team’s FA recruitment and render next season as rudderless as this one has been.
Fulofunk says
Uuuuuuuugly. Looks like the second unit did not get the TANK memo. BUT…cooler heads prevailed……
BigCitySid says
– Well done.
– No way the Lakers have one of the three worst records next season if they get a top two pick in June.
Baylor Fan says
I am with JC on this. Even one of the top two picks in this year’s draft would not be enough to overcome Commander Scott’s limitations as a coach.
Sald0gg says
I have a draft question that just struck me and I don’t know the answer to. So hypothetically if we end up with the 3rd pick and can’t get Ben or Ingram, couldn’t we trade it for a talented player thus guaranteeing that we keep our 2017 pick (can’t trade back to back picks), which would automatically back up the Philly pick to 2018 and ensuring that we don’t have to give a 1st rounder to Orlando (if our pick to Philly isn’t conveyed in 2016 or 2018, but 2018 then Orlando gets our 2018 and 2019 second rounders and no 1st)? I know we’d be trading our 2016 pick (#3 overall) but could get a really good player in the deal, ensure that we keep next year’s pick and dodge ever giving a 1st rounder to the Magic. Not a bad plan if we’re lucky enough to keep our pick but not lucky enough to get top 2. Am I right in my interpretation of the rule?
Clay Bertrand says
Soooo the young players aren’t “trusting each other” as Byron says??? This is a COACHING problem as in, a problem with the coaching, as in a problem with the HEAD COACH not being able to unify the team because he publicly chastises the young players who are the future and sides with inept veterans in all circumstances while NEVER criticizing the veterans in the press.
If Byron has chosen to endear himself to only ONE faction of the team, (KOBE & THE VETS–who are leaving at the end of the year) then he has chosen the wrong faction.
What I think has happened is that the Young Guys have finally quit on Byron’s BS coaching this year. Something happened here behind the scenes. It looks a lot like lack of effort by the young guys and NOT lack of ability. DAR looks visibly detached when he’s playing of late and Randle looks lost. Clarkson is just going thru the motions.
The way we were playing leading up to and thru the Golden State game had me genuinely worried that we would easily win a few more games and push us down in Lottery odds. And I think we WOULD have won a couple if we were still playing like that. But something is noticeably AMISS here now………
I honestly think something is now irreparably broken. There is a more drastic than normal disconnect between the players and Byron Scott than we are used to seeing. Something ain’t right. Russell has been totally OFF for a few games now. I don’t know if its Lou Williams coming back and taking back a chunk of minutes or something that happened behind the scenes in practice or what but these guys are NOT playing for Byron at this point.
The bench looked somber the whole 4th quarter and then at the buzzer you see the little pow wow of young players with Clarkson, DAR and Booker all covering their mouths and talking. You could almost read their minds there……….
It just feels like its more than just guys having a bad stretch of games. There is a deeper discontent that is producing these lackluster and effortless performances lately. Maybe there are internal rumblings that Byron is going to return and the Dread is already being shown???
I could very well be totally off on this and I have no evidence to support my “HUNCH” but to me, it looks different than just young guys having bad games. I see it in the body language and the spirit of the young guys. I think Byron may have finally Jumped the Shark………..
Clay Bertrand says
Sald0gg,
Great hypothetical. I do NOT know the answer off the top of my head but something tells me that this would not be allowed. I don’t know if it would be barred by the CBA outright or if a grievance would have to be filed by Philly/Orlando but doing what you proposed allows the Lakers to manipulate the future pick to the point of very clearly DEVALUING it by pushing it into the realm of becoming two 2nd rounders down the line.
My gut feeling tells me that something in the CBA would not allow us to do this. Perhaps there is a provision that deals with how CONDITIONAL TRADED PICKS can be dealt with. If it IS allowed however, it should be an option on the table for sure. Just seems too crooked to be allowable.
Either way, I like the way you think! ; )
rr says
Again, I never thought Byron was a good hire, and I don’t think he is a very good coach. But
1. It is tougher to bring full effort when you are 14-55.
2. Young guys often go up and down as they learn the NBA game and develop their skills and styles. The good games and the bad games are part of the same process.
3. The “rookie wall” is in the eyes of many a real thing and there is research that suggests as much. DAR has never played this many games before and obviously not at this level.
4. The Lakers’ young guys simply may not be as good as everyone wants them to be. The evidence on that is very inconclusive at this point, no matter what the confrontational optimist types want to tell themselves. If you actually look outside the fanbase, there is not a perception that Russell, Randle and Clarkson are poised to anchor the next Lakers’ contender once Byron Scott is gone. Russell is I think now seen by many (including me) as possibly being an All-Star, but neither Randle nor Clarkson is generally seen as being anything special. Is it possible that a subset of Lakers’ fans is right and everybody else is wrong? Sure. But I wouldn’t bet on it. A very large number of people outside of the fanbase thought that the Lakers would be the worst team in the West this year, and they have been.
5. The Lakers’ roster was and is both weak and poorly constructed.
All that said, natural development, Kobe’s retirement, and better coaching should lead to some real internal improvement, and if the Lakers keep the pick, use it wisely, and add some legitimate, prime NBA talent in FA, next year’s team could be much better. But it will be a long road.
Finally, I will stick to what I said in preseason: if the Lakers young guys have what it takes, I do not believe that a year of playing for Byron Scott will stop them from reaching their respective ceilings. Trashing Scott after every bad game or silly quote is just another way to keep hope alive.
Clay Bertrand says
rr,
“It is tougher to bring full effort when you are 14-55.”
—
Is is much easier to bring Full Effort when you are 18-49 then??? Because that’s what Phoenix did. They did it because their players LIKE their coach. They’ve even been lobbying ownership to hire him permanently!!! That ain’t happening for Byron!!! This, like almost all of your statements in this post cuts both ways. We are losing to CRAP teams and good ones alike.
“The Lakers’ young guys simply may not be as good as everyone wants them to be. THE EVIDENCE ON THAT IS VERY INCONCLUSIVE AT THIS POINT, NO MATTER WHAT THE CONFRONTATIONAL OPTIMIST TYPES WANT TO TELL THEMSELVES. If you actually look outside the fanbase, there is not a perception that Russell, Randle and Clarkson are poised to anchor the next Lakers’ contender once Byron Scott is gone. Russell is I think now seen by many (including me) as possibly being an All-Star, but neither Randle nor Clarkson is generally seen as being anything special. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT A SUBSET OF LAKERS’ FANS IS RIGHT AND EVERYBODY ELSE IS WRONG? SURE. BUT I WOULDN’T BET ON IT.”
—
Ok, so you first say the evidence is “VERY INCONCLUSIVE”. Fine. I would agree. Inconclusive means there IS NO CONCLUSION—that there is not a known, definitive answer. Then you go on to generalize the outside the organization CONCLUSIONS that Clarkson and Randle are “nothing special”. Further, you talk about who is RIGHT OR WRONG???? How is ANYONE right or wrong when the evidence is VERY INCONCLUSIVE??
I’ll tell you how you DON’T FIND OUT who is Right or Wrong: DON’T PLAY THE PLAYERS IN QUESTION. Just play Lou Williams and Marcelo Huertas. Then you will NEVER know if Clarkson and Russell and Randle are decent NBA talent.
Who makes that decision?? Byron Scott makes it. THAT’S why Byron Scott get’s trashed. Not to “keep Hope alive”……..
“The Lakers’ roster was and is both weak and poorly constructed.”
—
While I can agree with the gist of this statement, AGAIN, we just lost to Phoenix on our home floor coming off of 3 DAYS REST with Phoenix playing the second of a Back to Back. Phoenix started 2 7 footers, 2 Point Guards and a wing player. They started One rookie, One second year player, and an aging Center (Just Like we did). Their bench consists of 2 players they just picked up in the last couple of weeks (Jenkins & Budinger) for gods sake. They kicked our Ass last night. Am I to believe it was because they have a STRONG AND WELL CONSTRUCTED ROSTER??!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??
I say its because they PLAY HARD for their coach. They BELIEVE in what he says. NO ONE believe’s in Byron’s “message”. He has lost the team and I’d argue he never really had them all to begin with.
Which leads me to:
“… I do not believe that a year of playing for Byron Scott will stop them from reaching their respective ceilings.”
—
Fair enough. How bout TWO YEARS??? Would TWO years under Byron stop them from reaching their collective ceilings?? That’s the question at this point. This season is GONE. So are you saying that although you were NOT for Byron even being hired, you think he has been dealt a rough enough hand and done a good enough job with that hand to warrant ANOTHER year????!!!!!! AND FURTHER, that this ADDITIONAL YEAR will NOT have an adverse effect on the development of the young players????!!!!!!
I strongly disagree. I’m not saying it’s 100% Byron Scott’s fault how things have unfolded. It’s not nearly all his fault and he has had some unwinnable situations with all the competing agendas this year. But he hasn’t done himself any favors with his ACTUAL COACHING. Who has Byron made a better player??? Has Byron maximized this teams’ abilities??? Are they greater than the sum of their parts because Byron has a system that plays to their strengths and cloaks their weaknesses??? I can’t think of ONE SINGLE BIT of coaching that Byron has done where you could say HE was a positive factor. Not ONE.
Why the hell should he coach this team ANOTHER year???
Hope is ALIVE and WELL here. Byron Scott being around keeps it nicely shackled though.
Baylor Fan says
rr – Who is “everybody else” in your criticism of the young Lakers? Russell was acknowledged before the draft as the clear #2 or #3 pick. Philadelphia was crushed when the Lakers selected him since he was viewed as the key to their rebuilding. According to ESPN insiders: “Clarkson really benefited from the season-ending injury to Kobe Bryant, as it afforded him the playing time and touches to develop as a confident lead guard on the floor”. They had him at 5.2 WARP preseason. I watch the national telecasts of Lakers games and the hosts praise the young Lakers core.
In regards to what is the harm of not having a real coach and system in place is that it takes time to learn how to play for any coach. The players have to learn the offense and defense and the coach has to learn what to expect from the players. Clarkson and Randle have had 2 years of Commander Scott and yes their games have suffered for it. Russell has been rightly frustrated all season with the iso-centric sets that Commander Scott runs. Nance is the closest to performing according to the preseason scouting reports. His biggest flaw is not being decisive when he is open and gets the ball. Given that was a problem for him in college it is not a surprise to see it carrying over. At the same time, wouldn’t that be something the coaching staff would try to correct? Lastly, why do you take Commander Scott stepping down for granted?
Fern says
About the so-called rookie wall with our kids i think is very simple. They’re tired… no need to overthink this at least on my end…
rr says
Clay,
If you’re going to quote me, don’t put stuff in all caps unless I did so myself. As to effort level, either Phoenix or the Lakers were going to win that game last night even though both of teams are terrible. The game was close; Phoenix won. If you are claiming that the Lakers lost because they have tuned out Byron, fair enough, but that is simply an opinion. Finally, I said very clearly that I don’t know who is right or wrong, but I have seen about 30 games this year and have also looked closely at the numbers, and I am not convinced that Randle and Clarkson are going to be difference-makers. If they turn out to be, I will acknowledge it cheerfully. And Clarkson has arguably actually regressed a little. Some of that is not his fault, but even with the all ball-dominant guys around this year, his USG is the same.
Baylor Fan,
National host types are mostly there to promote the game that their employers are showing and the way to promote the Lakers is to talk about Kobe and talk up the young guys. Analytics types and people from other fanbases are from what I have seen neither especially high on nor living in fear of the Lakers’ young guys except to some extent Russell. As to Scott’s game planning and personality holding the young guys back, sure, maybe. We’ll see. But as the KBros always say: the NBA is a talent league.
rr says
Lastly, why do you take Commander Scott stepping down for granted?
—
Presuming that Jim and Mitch can actually make this decision autonomously, I see no upside to keeping Scott. If Jim is really on the timeline and Jeanie can actually remove him from his job, then Jim’s best shot in terms of coaching hires to get her to keep him is to take a shot on a coaching change. Byron is, as he was before he was hired, a known commodity.
rr says
Why the hell should he coach this team ANOTHER year???
—
I have not seen more than a couple of people here call openly for that. I certainly have not.
Robert says
Clean House !
Anything less starts to send us down a slippery slope which introduces all sorts of variables, some of which include Byron staying for another year.
And no I am not speaking about a swifter or a broom. I am picturing a sandblaster on full speed.
KO says
Smartest guy in NBA??
Lamarcus Aldridge.
Chose a real organisation over nightlife and reality stars.
Smart.
R says
Oh I don’t know; isn’t Byrons crappy court side body language and inane commentary enough to keep him around another year? It’s not like replacing him fixes the dis functional ownership, anyway. Will it all be better once PJ returns? He’s been a real world beater in NYC, after all.
KO says
JC
Not to worry.
Have I ever lied to you?
Has any player ever made more for less in 2 years then Kobe. Apx a $800,000 a game?
No wonder he seems to be laughing all the time.
Sald0gg says
Clay I mean they’re fully within their right to trade the #3 pick and get a talented player. They had their own pick in 2015 so 2016 is eligible to be traded which would mean that 2017 cannot be moved pushing Philly back to 2018 and Orlando to 2 2nd rounders. This is my interpretation and the route I’d take were I the FO and we had no shot at Ben or Ingram. You’re gonna lose 2 1st rounders either way, but it would mean we get talent for one of them instead of it being nothing. Jaylen and Dragan don’t move the needle enough for me to say that it’s not the right move. I believe I’m right, but would love to hear confirmation from Darius.
rubenowski says
Spurs!
mud says
why all the panic?
5 rookies and a sophomore as an important part of the rotation SHOULD look like this. of course i hoped for better, but it’s not like i can reasonably expect better.
the young guys are improving. that’s all i can ask, personally. if they are improving, then eventually, everything will be ok, assuming that they continue to improve.
Scott does not preach isos. the players are doing that. that’s a big part of the problem. everyone is trying very hard, but they’re often trying to do it themselves. the coaching staff has been talking about ball and player movement and communication on defense, and the players have been parroting that, but in the heat of the game, other instincts often take over. it’s just like a peewee football team trying to run plays. by the end of the season, you hope that every player is actually in the place the he’s supposed to be in for at least one play, by the end of the season. that’s rookies and that is why PJ called them “lower than whale poop”.
the fans are powerless to fix this, unless they are capable of breaking the schneid. enjoy the ride. it’s not one person’s fault, and it’s not permanent. it is, however, for now.
J C says
Ko
Hope you’re right.
Heads must roll.
lil pau says
Can someone who knows address Sald0ogg’s interesting question? I agree with CB that it seems unlikely that this would be permitted, but would like to know for sure. If it IS legal, it is definitely worth considering.
Robert says
The answer is NO. If we keep the pick in 16, we will immediately be scheduled to be without one in 17. Then the “Stephien” rule applies. That rule basically states that you can’t foolishly trade away your entire future. Thankfully the rule exists, but in spite of it, the Lakers have 3-4 draft picks going out over the next few years with zero coming in. Often a good team might have this situation as they have traded their picks to get currently contributing players. Bad teams usually have the opposite situation – no current talent but many future picks. The Lakers have strategically engineered a rare situation where they have little current talent (they have some developing talent), and also several picks going out.
Baylor Fan says
Mud – check out Utah and Boston. They have young teams that do not play like peewee football teams. Maybe you are on to something.
Anonymous says
The Tank Commander is coaching himself out of the continent. Love it.
Clay Bertrand says
rr,
First off, I capitalized the portions of the paragraph I quoted from you that I was directly addressing because there were multiple parts of that paragraph I was addressing. I wanted to give anyone read my post the benefit of seeing the full context of what you were saying and NOT just a couple of potentially out of context quotes that I could have cut and pasted. No one is trying to claim YOU USED ALL CAPS in your post. ALL CAPS is MY THING!!! ; )
Secondly, your post referred initially to the Lakers record as a reason they maybe didn’t bring full effort. I merely pointed out that a poor record is not a reasonable excuse when the opposing team is just as bad.
Third, you set up a MAJORITY vs. MINORITY scenario with the General Outside the organization view that Clarkson and Randle are “nothing special” on one hand, and the view of the “subset of Lakers’ fans” you term the “Confrontational Optimists” on the other hand. You then go on to say that you “wouldn’t bet on” the view that the apparent minority “subset of Lakers’ fans” holds regarding Clarkson and Randle’s potential. This at least IMPLIES that you agree with the general outside the organization perception that they are “nothing special”.
It’s cool though. You may have misspoken out of frustration—this year has us all fraught with it. I know that you’d RATHER those kids prove to be better than people may think they can be. It’s healthy to Devil’s Advocate our own theories and using the outside of the organization comments, though almost always from anonymous sources with unknown levels of true knowledge, is a fair place to draw from in that respect.
Sald0gg/lil pau/Robert —
I STILL do not have a definitive answer for this. Robert’s post this morning though made me wonder if the pick is treated as “TRADED UNLESS its in the Top 3” or “UNTRADED UNTIL its falls out of the Top 3”????? I know this looks like semantics but it matters when applying the Stepien Rule. I don’t think that they can technically trade ANY of these draft picks that have the potential to be affected by the Stepien Rule. They technically would have to draft a player with that pick, and THEN they can trade that drafted player anywhere they want. This is the case with ALL draft picks that are affected by this rule I beleive. You can STILL trade the PLAYER DRAFTED, but you cannot trade the PICK ITSELF before you draft. So in a true Yogi Berra summation: You can still trade away your future (young drafted player) just as long as its in the present (i.e. you’ve already drafted the player).
Hence, under Sald0gg’s hypothetical, the Lakers COULD always trade the PLAYER THEY DRAFT with a hypothetical #3 pick even if they cannot trade the PICK pre draft.
“If we keep the pick in 16, we will immediately be scheduled to be without one in 17.”
—
I still am uncertain if Robert is correct with this. This would mean that the picks are considered, TRADED UNLESS they fall in the Top 3. Could very well be………
Re the Lakers Future Picks Traded:
TO me its strange that any team would allow a trade where the First Round Draft picks owed to them to devalue over time from First Rounders into Second Rounders if they are not delivered in a timely fashion. To me, a First Round Pick is a First Round Pick. Why let that pick become less of an asset over time. Doesn’t make any sense to me. If I trade Dwight Howard for a First Round Pick what is my incentive to allow that pick to become 2 second rounders if I don’t get the pick within 5 years of the trade????? Nice wrinkle Mitch!!!!!!!!!
mud says
Baylor Fan-do they have FIVE rookies and one sophomore in their main rotations?
as far as i can see, at the end of a 9 man rotation, Utah has two rookies. the starters average about 3 1/2 years each, but that’s because one starter has 2 years of experience. the other starters all have 5 years of experience.
Boston has one sophomore in the 9 man rotation, Marcus Smart. everyone else has 3-10 years experience.
the Lakers have FOUR rooks and one sophomore in the list of the top 9 minute leaders on the team.
A Horse with no name says
Darius’ Twitter : “I really wish this dude would no longer comment on at my site…” LOL.
Not sure why you don’t just say it here…. Just say’in…
Darius Soriano says
Sal,
It is my understanding the Lakers cannot trade “the pick” but can trade the player they select. Because, theoretically, they have already traded next year’s pick if they retain this year’s. It’s just that pick is also protected.
rr says
Clay,
I have not seen an overall set of performance traits and metrics from Clarkson and Randle that suggest to me that they are going to be elite players, no. Average-to-pretty good seems more likely to me, and it has nothing to do with anonymous sources. These guys are playing now, they are putting up numbers, and I have seen them play a lot, and I have looked at the numbers. There is nothing wrong with average-to-pretty good. Teams need guys like that.
But yes, I would much rather be totally wrong and have to listen to the confrontational optimists (an extremely accurate term, and I could give you a lot of examples) while rooting for a good team or at least an improving one.
As to the all caps thing, I think a lot of people read that as the internet version of yelling, even if you don’t mean it that way. YMMV
Darius Soriano says
Horse,
I’ve emailed guys in the past telling them their act has worn thin. Most guys change up or settle into a style most people find either humor or value in. Some commenters do not. I don’t need to say names. These people know who they are.
Mid-Wilshire says
So sorry to see Anthony Davis get banged up. It looks like he’s done for the season:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/anthony-davis-to-miss-rest-of-season-with-knee–back-woes-211555709.html
BigCitySid says
– “The Lakers have strategically engineered a rare situation where they have little current talent (they have some developing talent), and also several picks going out.” Robert
If that is indeed the case, the future of the Lakers looks very bleak under this current dysfunctional ownership which must be among the worst in the league.
Vasheed says
I think I would agree with RR on our rookies. I think the F.O. has done an amazing job to not pick a bust and to find gems in the late draft. They got a lot of good pieces but, the only rookie I see building around is Russell. I think despite the lack of picks the F.O. has they have balanced that out by at least not drafting poorly with the picks they had. I actually think the Lakers may have too many rookies. I know a lot of people want rookie contracts but, you have to not only develop them but have the environment to develop them. That is hard while having a lot of rookies.
I will admit as the season closes I was way too optimistic to begin the year. Still the team’s future in my opinion looks brighter because of the players they have already drafted.
Clay Bertrand says
rr,
“I have not seen an overall set of performance traits and metrics from Clarkson and Randle that suggest to me that they are going to be elite players, no.”
___
Clarkson has played 125 games in his “career” so far (just about 1.5 seasons worth) and Randle has played 69 games including the 14 minutes in the one game last season before he broke his leg.
Even if you COULD find any semblance of “performance traits and metrics” on either of these guys, it would clearly be based on such a small sample size as to render it highly inconclusive at this point. You yourself have stated that the evidence thus far is “INCONCLUSIVE”. I would agree.
Yet you also keep saying that these guys are “nothing special” and “elite players, no” based on this admittedly small sample size, your admittedly NOT seeing any “performance traits and metrics” from either guy, and of course, your “inconclusive” admission.
My point is that if we have little to nothing to judge these guys by, and you yourself have stated as much, then why do you still maintain that these guys are NOT going to be elite or special??
Further, we have ONLY seen these players play under the Byron Scott coaching which is at least, suspect.
I’ll stick with “inconclusive” until we have a much bigger sample size and more stable teaching/coaching as a context in which to judge all the young guys.
A Horse With No Name says
Clay: Nice reply to rr @ 11:34.
rr says
I’ll stick with “inconclusive”
—-
That’s fine. If you actually think that, then you shouldn’t need to be writing lengthy, confrontational, caps-laden screeds any time I (or someone else) suggests that they aren’t that great. We can all just relax and see what happens. I have plenty of specific reasons for having the opinions that I do about Randle and Clarkson, but yeah, sure, it is very early in their careers and maybe Scott really is holding them back as much as some people think. I doubt it, but we won’t know until he is gone.
LordMo says
Guys u know I’m a “Laker Diehard” but we simply are not that good and probably will not be for a long time. We can only hope that the FO gets some clarity and straightens things out. The 3 worst years in Laker history is what they have produced. The empty promises mean crap and the 3 year plan is garbage!
Plain and simple we need talent! Does not look like any free agent of significant worth is coming here to this “King Lear” like mess anytime soon so we are screwed unless we draft and develop.
We have a chance to grab 2 more top 5 picks …. Seems like a no brainer to me!
2016 u grab Simmons, Ingram or Brown but the kid from Utah is really good and Rabb is going to be a beast just needs weight. 2017 u grab Giles. Then the climb back to respectability begins.
The long climb! Looking at about 4 to 5 years people before we get back to the “Promised Land” and it ain’t going to be pretty. But if you can let the core develop and gel … Hey now!
Clay Bertrand says
rr,
There is no confrontation. You make fair points but don’t always back them up with logical evidence and you post them here in a public sports forum for others to read. I have commented in agreement with you and in disagreement in the past. Other posters have called me out for things I have said in the past and I welcome it. That’s what goes on in chat rooms and discussion forums. Apparently, when someone challenges your spiel, you feel its hostile and take it personally. Especially when BIG EVIL FONTS ARE AIMED AT YOU. But you needn’t fret.
For the record, I have never said that these guys are the next wave of AllStars. I don’t post comments that these guys are the next coming or the worst ever. Nothing personal, I just point out when I feel someone posts something flawed. No offense, but had you included any actual facts, examples or even opinionated reasons in support of your position instead of contradicting yourself, then your point would have been a stronger one. Big deal. Nothing Personal. We’re all on the same team here!
_____
Now staying more on topic—I’m not saying Jordan Clarkson will be elite but Bobby Marks, the former Nets Asst. GM and Front Office Insider had this comment this week regarding him:
“Restricted free agent whom the Lakers will have the right to match. “Arenas” provision protects the Lakers on any offer that comes their way. Tremendous upside. Can play on and off the ball.”
I am officially changing my “INCONCLUSIVE” to a more positive sounding, “TREMENDOUS UPSIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!”
rr says
Clay,
I have posted this stuff before, but since you seem to have this idea that you are this logical guy dealing in facts whereas I am not, here you go:
Randle is a strong, fast guy who was a lottery pick from a power school who can get points and rebounds so fans get excited by him. But the issues with him are:
1. He is not a great finisher although he has been improving. Here are rookie numbers from 0-3 ft:
RANDLE .563
MILLSAP .611
FARIED .686
GRIFFIN .689
GREEN .586
As I have said, Green’s development arc in Golden State is very, very unusual but even he was ahead of Randle in this category as a rookie.
2. Randle has even bigger problems from mid-range. Again, rookie numbers, this time from 10-16 feet:
RANDLE.193
MILLSAP .370
FARIED .263
GRIFFIN .298
GREEN .208
No one that I know of sees Randle as being likely to become a big 3P Shooter or a shot blocker. He does have a better dime rate as a rookie than three of these guys, so there is that. In camp, Mitch mentioned Lamar Odom after Randle had a good game. As a 20-year-old rookie, Odom shot .632 at the rim. .339 from 10-16 and had an AST% more than double Randle’s.
The counters to this usually involve some smacktalk about how terrible Byron is. Odom played his rookie year on a 15-67 Clippers team coached by Chris Ford and Jim Todd. The other guys:
FARIED 38-28/GEORGE KARL
MILLSAP 51-31/JERRY SLOAN
GRIFFIN 32-50/VINNY DEL NEGRO
GREEN 47-35/MARK JACKSON
So, sure, maybe Randle will get a lot better under a different coach with some more exp. But I don’t see specific reasons to believe that he is going to be an elite player.
As to Clarkson, like I said, his USG is the same as it was last year, and his overall numbers have mainly either held or regressed. His AST% is down with Russell and Williams around, and his 3P is up some. He has had some fluctuations in his shooting—going way down from 0-3 feet, and way up from 3-10. He seems to have worked on those 3-10 shots based on the eye test, so that is a plus sign. But he will be 24 in June and still looks to me like a pretty good combo guard and a great value pick at 46—but that’s it.
Could I be wrong? Sure. I have been wrong about players before and will be again. But I (and many others) saw this team as the worst team in the West going in, and they have been.
Clay Bertrand says
rr,
Nice numbers. They do shade some of the picture but they don’t fill it all in IMO. While these comparisons are certainly reasonable, I would say that for the most part, these guys having played more college ball than Randle did allow them to enter the NBA with more polished games all around regardless of their rookie ages.
Randle was a 1 and Done at Kentucky.
Faried played 4 years
Millsap played 3 years
Griffin 2 years
Green 4 years
Odom was a 1 and Done I as I recall like Randle.
Not entering the game as polished as some, Randle does have glaring weaknesses that he will need to work on like his right hand, his mid range, and his learning how to finish against length. I just don’t see that there is any predictive measure to a player’s success by looking at early numbers for guys who are clearly in the midst of developing in this game. That’s what the 1 and Done’s have done to change the league (for the worse): they are LEARNING ON NBA COMPANY TIME. Instead of arriving at a certain skill level, they are arriving increasingly incomplete and guys are learning on the job.
If it were so easy to predict who is going to be elite and who isn’t based on numbers, this would be Daryl Morey’s kingdom and we’d all just be livin in it!!!!!!!
There’s more to it than that obviously.
For an interesting comp, check out the numbers on Clarkson vs. Jimmy Butler. Admittedly different team circumstances for each guy but interesting nonetheless.
Also as an aside RE: Clarkson, people all credit the Lakers for “stealing” Clarkson in the 2nd round. There is an article I recall (I’d link it if I could find it) as well as an interview with Mitch where they explained Clarkson (and Jabari Brown) both had their fathers diagnosed with Cancer their last years at Missouri.
I recall seeing Clarkson’s shooting percentages from during that period and its clear his game was impacted by the stress he had dealing with his Dad’s illness. Other NBA guys had him as a streaky shooter as a result of his up and down numbers. I don’t know HOW the Lakers got the story behind his mercurial shooting with no one else connecting those dots but it seems had his numbers been more consistent on paper, he would have been drafted much higher.
Again, I don’t know HOW they did it but agreed “great value at 46” for Clarkson. I hope both guys surprise us all but watching them get to where they are going will be fun regardless.
Anonymous says
Clay,
If you have some examples showing that one and done guys have different development arcs than guys who played two, three or four years, and that their rookie stats therefore mean less, then I will be happy to see them. Randle has been comp’d by people here to all those guys, plus Charles Barkley and Zach Randolph and I am sure some that I missed. The Randle stuff comes down to this:
>>>>Randle does have glaring weaknesses that he will need to work on like his right hand, his mid range, and his learning how to finish against length.
People are basically claiming that he will get a lot better than he is because of Byron, because of the year off, because he was a one-and-done, because of the Kentucky system, because of roster construction, etc. That may be so, but it is all speculative right now. We have seen that he has not been as good as a rookie as most of his hoped-for comps were. That’s established.