Jerry West: Luke Walton Needs More Talented Lakers Roster

By Bryce Miller

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/may/06/luke-walton-lakers-jerry-west-warriors/?#article-copy

I think he'll probably be able to weather that well.

You sound do confident there Jerry.

In other news, the world is round. Does magic Johnson want to add anything else blatantly obvious to this conversation?

^^^ Nice! Haha

Well come on back and help us with it Jerry!!!!!!....excellent interview Jerry.

Obviously. But some fans think it's best to trade 2-3 of our young talent for 1 talent. That doesn't work. Especially if that one talent is Demarcus Cousins or Jimmy Butler. Those two are not worthy of trading out entire future for.

I might do it for Paul George/ Kevin Durant.

But not two non-superstars.

I don't think anyone on here would trade 3 of our top 4 assets, (including this years pick) for Cousins or Butler.

I assume you do not like Cousins behavior and that's why your against him, because his stats show that he is a top 5 player in the NBA. Kobe had that same kind of behavior when he was stuck on a losing LA team after Shaq left.

I think most people who want to trade youth for veterans are more under the assumption of only giving up 2 assets not 3. I know you said 2 or 3, but there is huge difference between giving up 2 or 3 of our assets. 3 is clearly over the top.

The other thing is, Cousins and Butler are brought up because there teams have said things that make other teams think there available. Durrant isn't even a trading option and Bird has never once said anything related to trading PG13.

Also Butler and Cousins are both under ridiculous low deals that would not affect our 2 max cap space this summer.

Everybody thinks one way or the other. Neither is right or wrong.

1. Trade some youth for an All-star.

or

2. Don't trade and keep youth forever.

Depends on how you view Randle, Russell or any of the young players, turning out. Sure they have potential but if it is not realized you have nothing.

Trading for the sure thing is a guarantee you have all star talent.

As of right now Randle looks like being a Z Bo and Russell looks like being a poor man's Ginobli. Neither of those are worth holding onto if you want to become a contender. That doesn't work either.

It's catch 22, you run the risk of losing a great player/potential superstar if you trade a young player but if you hold onto them and they don't develop you are equally screwed.

I would prefer they hold on to the young core, we really don't know what we have in any of the players. It was hard to evaluate any of them in last year's system, but if a good offer came in, Mitch has to listen to it and not immediately hang up the phone. No one is untouchable on this roster.

That's the cavaet right there. Ridiculous low deals for all star talent.

Go through the list of nba champions and every team has players paid below their market value. That is the key to building a successful team/roster.

Or you can be like the Lakers/nets and overpay your players (Kobe/Johnson) and absolutely stink. Lol

^^^

Got a point there.

There's been multiple times that people have suggested giving up three young players for 1 veteran. Cousins isn't a superstar player. And he's nothing like Kobe was.

^^^

I know that's right.

That is why we need a GM who can "see into the future." West did it with Kobe Bryant, Derek Fisher, *Draymond Green, *Steph Curry and NOT trading *Klay Thompson, among others. Pop did it with Kawhi Leonard, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker and many others.

Obviously prescient GM's are hard to come by. But Mitch isn't one of them. (Evidence: Giving Kent Bazemore away, trading four picks for a washed up Nash, etc.) Hopefully with input from Luke, maybe the quality of trades and draft picks will be on the upswing.

The key word here is "hopefully."

• -- as a "consultant."

There's been multiple times that people have suggested giving up three young players for 1 veteran. Cousins isn't a superstar player. And he's nothing like Kobe was.

He's pretty close to being a superstar, if he was on a winning team we'd probably be calling him a superstar. But I still wouldn't give up 3 young players for him. I'm not giving 3 of the core up for anybody, not even Curry.

He's pretty close to being a superstar, if he was on a winning team we'd probably be calling him a superstar. But I still wouldn't give up 3 young players for him. I'm not giving 3 of the core up for anybody, not even Curry.

I agree. He's not a superstar because he's not a winner.

I agree. He's not a superstar because he's not a winner.

Have to have the team around you to be a winner. Was Curry a superstar before GSW started building team around him, and they started winning.

Have to have the team around you to be a winner. Was Curry a superstar before GSW started building team around him, and they started winning.

Curry was already winning, he just recently became a superstar. Not a good comparison. Cousins has had loads of talent around him and hasn't even scratched the playoffs. He doesn't get a pass. Any of the superstars in the league would have that team in the playoffs. LBJ, Durant, Curry, Westbrook...

Curry was already winning, he just recently became a superstar. Not a good comparison. Cousins has had loads of talent around him and hasn't even scratched the playoffs. He doesn't get a pass. Any of the superstars in the league would have that team in the playoffs. LBJ, Durant, Curry, Westbrook...

I disagree, except for LBJ maybe, Westbrook could get okc into playoffs without Durant last year. Warriors went 25-56, 36-46,23-43, in Curry's 1st few years there, 1st winning season didn't come till 2012 at 47-35. That Kings team is built terrible, plus different coaches and system every year, sorry but nobody's going to win there. Don't see loads of talent around him, Raptors were better after R. Gay left, rondo stuffed stats with assists, but was terrible on defense,where's the talent.

I disagree, except for LBJ maybe, Westbrook could get okc into playoffs without Durant last year. Warriors went 25-56, 36-46,23-43, in Curry's 1st few years there, 1st winning season didn't come till 2012 at 47-35. That Kings team is built terrible, plus different coaches and system every year, sorry but nobody's going to win there. Don't see loads of talent around him, Raptors were better after R. Gay left, rondo stuffed stats with assists, but was terrible on defense,where's the talent.

So you're saying that Curry has been winning for 5 straight years? Yeah that's exactly what I said. Who cares about his first three years? No one is arguing that Curry was the winniest rookie ever or something. And I think you'd be wrong that those other players couldn't get the Kings into the playoffs with that roster. Look at what Lillard has done with far less of a talented roster! And he's not considered on quite the same level as Cousins. As of right now, Cousins is a loser. It's up to him to change that.

The more I watch KD and Westbrook play together, the more I find myself smh. Those two definitely do not compliment each other. The funny thing is that when Harden was a part of their core, he was the neutralizer believe it or not. KD/Westbrook together look like Harden in Houston and vice versa IMO.

So you're saying that Curry has been winning for 5 straight years? Yeah that's exactly what I said. Who cares about his first three years? No one is arguing that Curry was the winniest rookie ever or something. And I think you'd be wrong that those other players couldn't get the Kings into the playoffs with that roster. Look at what Lillard has done with far less of a talented roster! And he's not considered on quite the same level as Cousins. As of right now, Cousins is a loser. It's up to him to change that.

Well Cousins definitely won't change that in the cowbell state...lol!!!

The more I watch KD and Westbrook play together, the more I find myself smh. Those two definitely do not compliment each other. The funny thing is that when Harden was a part of their core, he was the neutralizer believe it or not. KD/Westbrook together look like Harden in Houston and vice versa IMO.

I've never felt that they compliment each other.

So you're saying that Curry has been winning for 5 straight years? Yeah that's exactly what I said. Who cares about his first three years? No one is arguing that Curry was the winniest rookie ever or something. And I think you'd be wrong that those other players couldn't get the Kings into the playoffs with that roster. Look at what Lillard has done with far less of a talented roster! And he's not considered on quite the same level as Cousins. As of right now, Cousins is a loser. It's up to him to change that.

I can agree it's up to Cousins to change, but it's hard to be consistent with a different coach and system every year. But as far as Kings roster I guess we'll agree to disagree. Having said that, I'm not giving up the mother load to trade for him. I'll let Celtics do that!! Lol