Lebron or Embiid for the Lakers?

I don't think it's any secret what the master plan of Magic and Pelinka is: next year we will bring in Paul George and The King, who will be coming off his consecutive thrashing by Golden State in the playoffs and will very reasonably want to move to a team that gives him the opportunity to be something other than the Warriors personal pinata doll.

Magic is hoping that Ball, Ingram, Zubac, Randle, Kuzma and the others take a big enough leap next year to lure Lebron here arm in arm with George.

I don't really want Lebron here for several reasons. In fact I'm not excited about George or Westbrook coming here either because of what that will mean for Ingram and Ball for perhaps half a decade. I also don't want any of the young players traded to make room for vets. I don't want any part of either of those things. I want to see the kid's start, play and grow and take us to where we want to go.

But I don't run the Lakers and Magic has a different idea.

If we did get Lebron and George next year what would happen?

I think the Lakers would become one of the three best teams in basketball with Golden State and the Spurs. Talk about a quick jump back to prominence, right? Just what Magic wants.

But Ingram would pay a big price for a long time and I think he's a special player who will one day eclipse George and I don't want him to miss a second of playing time nor force him out of position for years.

And who would we have to get rid of to pay Lebron and George? Randle? Zubac? Kuzma? Others? I don't know but changes will have to be made.

Lastly will the Lebron led Lakers win the title in their very small Lebron window? Maybe they could beat the Spurs. Lebron is amazing and if the kid's take off in two years....

But what of Golden State? Can aging Lebron, in a whole new system with a new team new coach and callow, developing and learning teammates actually get the Lakers so good they beat a veteran Warriors machine coming into its prime?

That is kind of hard to envision from my end. And if it doesn't happen Lebron is then 35 the next year. In other words diminishing returns.

If Lebron was 27 and we had a good six year run with him then I could actually support such a move. But we won't have a six year run, not with the real Lebron.

But there is another high profile free agent next year that has caught my interest: Joel Embid.

Embid has shown himself to be a very special talent at the position that special talent is hardest to find, center.

Embid is also a contemporary of our young future core. He is them.

Can you imagine Embid playing with Ball and Ingram? For ten years. I can. Can you imagine Ball passing to him? I can. Can you imagine Embid protecting our basket and becoming the fulcrum for a pressing, swarming, cheating defense? I can.

Can you see in three or four years that team beating a tiring, aging Golden State team for the Western title and winning the first of several championships? I can.

Of course there is that one very big problem, his injury history. If that is also his future then he won't be any good to any team.

But there is also this, the Lakers will have a full year to see how his legs and feet hold up.

I would say this, if Embid has another foot or leg injury, even one that puts him out for only a month, don't pursue him. Let it go. Run from him like he's Typhoid Mary.

But if performs all year without the ghosts of past leg injuries coming back to haunt him, then I would make Embid my top free agent desire over aging Lebron James.

Because if you get this guy as our center and he stays healthy you are not talking about a two year prayer run with a soon to be deposed old King, you could be looking at a eight to ten year run of contention that might rival Showtime for longevity.

So if it's Lebron or Embid, who would you target if you ran the team?

Or would Westbrook or someone else top your wish list?

Or do you decide to go with the kids only and eschew the big name free agents and their bigger salaries?

You're the GM. What do you do?

No way Sixers let Embiid walk if he stays healthy. And he'll only be a RAG next year.

But if I had a choice, I'd go after Embiid, Wiggins (RFA), PG13, Westbrook, than LBJ , in that order.

http://www.spotrac.com/nba/philadelphia-76ers/joel-embiid-15355/

Kkennon1,

I read an article that said Embid was an unrestricted free agent next year but you are correct and the author of that article was wrong. That would certainly cramp any attempt to get him.

Then you have Demarcus Cousins. What a body, what a talent, what a head case. If it weren't for the third thing what a prize he would be for us.

I can picture Ball getting him the rock too. Wow.

But who can take a chance on him? I heard some really, really bad things about him as far as how he reacts to coaches and teammates if things don't go exactly the way he wants. I mean things like he won't hustle, he won't defend, he won't pass, he pouts he becomes uncommunicative, he blames coaches and teammates. Just brutal stuff that can poison a locker and kill any team.

Wouldn't touch Cousins, unless we had a player like LBJ on team.

Randy,

One guy I'm watching closely and hoping (actually that's mean..lol) that he develops some friction with the team due to his current role, is Klay Thomson. He has been forced to curtail his natural exploits and has been made to sacrifice the most on that team. His Pops would be thrilled if that ever materialized. He was a huge laker Fan growing up in LA and his brother plays for the Dodgers.

A bonafide two way player who can lock down the best on defense, while shooting lights out on the other end. I'm hoping another "Harden" scenario emerges wherein he gets a chance to come into his own and showcases his talent on another team. He has been featured in numerous trade rumors and that might have resulted in him getting slightly disgruntled, I suspect.

Roman,

Yes Thompson would be a terrific addition to the team, a huge upgrade at the position with the added bonus that he would not displace Ball or Ingram, which is a huge consideration for me and why I really am not a proponent of getting Westbrook or George.

I think your scenario has merit for all the reasons that you mentioned.

He is going to pick up another ring this year which will make three. I'm sure he loves to win, but with three rings it gives him leeway to try strike out on his own.

As you say, he is the guy who ended up sacrificing the most and he would view the lakers as a team where he could be a bigger factor scoring, and he would.

And he would still be at an age where he could reasonably expect to contend for a title as the lakers mature. And his departure would weaken the Warriors and help the lakers and his cause.

One last thing here that could count. What is his relationship with Walton? If it was real good then that could go a long way in luring him here along with the other inducements we have hit upon.

My choice would be PG13 and DMC. I think the infectious passing by Ball would make DMC happy. That's just me though.

Randy,

You are spot on about the age factor. He would mesh in seamlessly with the core we have. The third title would definitely afford him the luxury to look for greener pastures as far as his own personal legacy is concerned. Like you mention, it would definitely galvanize his personal ambitions.

On paper he is the better shooter compared to Curry. He doesn't need the ball to be effective. That's a potential knock on the other big names mentioned in the discussion. One of the best players I have seen at playing away from the ball. That 60+ pt game was no joke.

He has already exhibited his unselfishness and would hopefully not impose his presence on the team, or throw his weight around. He is the perfect low profile, big game Superstar this team sorely needs, to get them over the hump at the opportune time.

Hopefully we get Lopez to rediscover his mojo in his old stomping grounds( Lopez is an LA native..lol), cause I feel he is the prototypical modern center who can both run and stretch the floor. That would address a major need and he is a great person anyways. A humble human being for whom it is very easy to root for. He needs to stay healthy and show a propensity to grab rebounds. I have a sneaky feeling that he would enjoy playing with Ball and might have a breakout season.

Pete,

I sure understand where you are coming from. If I knew Ball would make Cousins happy I would want him in the worst possible way. His presence in the middle would be the final piece of the puzzle here with what he are collecting now.

I'll say this too, it may not be far fetched. I think we all know Lebron is the apple of Magic's eye but if that doesn't work it would not surprise me to see him cast his eye to Cousins. You can see Magic wants to win soon. Make the playoffs soon. Soon as in no later than next year.

Remember, just few years ago the Lakers tried hard to get Cousins. That was under the abysmal Kupchak regime but the reasons he and the FO wanted him are still there. He is a monster physical presence and great talent.

Roman,

That description of Thompson is perfect: A low profile superstar. And that is a very rare commodity. He would also be such a huge help with his years of experience and winning titles for these young players we have.

Lopez is an easy man to root for. It was funny you brought him up. I just read an article where Luke Walton was raving about Lopez's three point shot and how he will fit in perfectly because his shot will allow Ingram and Randle to operate in the paint better. I also notice how Ball loves to drive in the lane for his shot or to set up someone. That is something I really like.

Here is the article, Roman, about Walton's praise of Lopez and how he fits with his and Lakers desired scheme.

https://clutchpoints.com/luke-walton-impressed-by-brook-lopez-three-point-shooting/

My question is will Cousins even get you in playoffs or will he implode locker room. Guess we'll find out how things go with Pels this season. If he can't help them win more games playing next to AD, than I'd pass!!!

SPQR, In short, if there was any player in this league I wish I could bring to this team, that would be my native Giannis Antetokounmpo. Considering the prospect of Lebron, I tend to get less and less excited the more time I analyse and think about it. Lebron, to join LA at 35, is a great talent, one of the greatest we have seen in this league. He is a great team player and very unselfish in sharing the ball. He will be able to provide the leadership that we miss so much. BUT, at the same time, Lebron has spent his career in the much weak East. In the past 10 years, after leaving Cleveland, he has only played with teams having 2 or more proven, superstars. And, on top of that, he has lost to every greater team he has faced in the playoffs. Why would I get excited having Lebron at 35, at a team where the next best talent would have only been in the league for 2 or 1 years, in a Conference full of talent where there will be 2 or 3 better teams to beat at least. Did we (as fans) make so many sacrifices during the past 4 years just to see our team getting to lose with Lebron on the lead before eventually he gets an injury or another and starts declining? Then comes the prospect of Embiid. Here I totally agree with what you have written. An athletic fierce at the 5, in Luke's style of play, capable of hitting the 3, being a defensive interior leader AND being at the same age as our core? Yes, I would be excited in this case. I wouldn't even mind losing in the beginning while being patient until our time comes again. With that being said, I don't believe Embiid....

Randy,

Thanks for sharing that article. Fantastic breakdown I must say and makes one more optimistic about the future. I admit I have been enamored with Cousins and other more illustrious centers in the past. I always had a pre-conceived bias for old school/ throw back, back to the basket centers. However Lopez seems to be the ideal contemporary center who can effortlessly transition to the current, almost position-less basketball era.

What we have out here is a "Horses for Courses" big man and someone who would not clog the lanes. This makes him even more indispensable especially when we go small ball, since he can also stretch the floor. Most teams sub their centers when they decide to go small ball, but it should not be an issue with Lopez in the line up.

Roman, I too have a biased for the old school center. It started with Kareem and then Shaq. You can throw Hakeem in there too. Moses Malone, Wilt, who was before my time. As you know, the NBA changed the rules during the season we beat the Nets for the title including the defensive lane time rule. That was aimed at Shaq, he was just too dominant. Just as rules were changed to hamper Wilt and Kareem. And of course there were other rules changes since. All aimed at eliminating the physical scrum type of game we saw in the 90's and 2000's. They wanted a more wide open game with movement, passing and shooting and those rules changes along with the evolution of three point shooting got them exactly what the wanted. An unfortunate by product of this was the devaluation of the center and that position. Teams now would seem to want to have three point shooters over centers and some teams like the Houston Rockets would use analytics will flat out tell you so. Which brings up a chicken or egg question: Have the rules and style of play ended the traditional center position as one that can dominate the league as it so often did in the past? Or is it more so that there just have not been any true dreadnought centers since Shaq? I saw Riley a few weeks ago state one of the reasons the Showtime Lakers would have beaten Golden State was that Kareem would have destroyed them. Is that true or would the new rules have relegated him to a large but no longer overwhelming force in today's game who would have gone down in the barrage of three pointers from Golden State? Is it possible that Embid, Davis, Cousins and Town's would be the monsters of today, far....

The coaching isn't right on that team and not to mention they are in the wild wild west. The worst thing the Pelicans could've done was fire Monty Williams. He had that team thriving and at least making the playoffs. Alvin Gentry has been a disaster. Some people are meant to be assistant coaches IMO.

The Pelicans also agreed with Rondo today from what I'm reading.

I really feel sorry about their coach's job this year, with Rondo and Cousins on the same team!

Well written. First, I go with the kids, for now, see how they develop and see what they can become. If upgrades are needed go from there. To answer you other question, I would take you or Kkennon or Userpete or Robert Sacre over James. He is this generation's anti-laker and as a fan I have no problem acting like a fan. I don't care how good he is. Secondly, I don't want Cousins or Westbrook. They'll more than likely never win a title. Definitely. It as the best player on their team. Like you I'm also not excited about George. We already have Ingram!

My plan would be to see what we have in Ball, Clarkson, Ingram, Randle, Zubac and now KCP. Adding 2 of any of the players you named will not help us win a title. That team would get worked by the warriors and like you said drastically shorten our window. I don't understand why anyone would want that. That assures us we won't win a title, while developing these young men at least there's a chance. We have to see what they become.

How does it shorten our window, young players are on rookie contracts for 4-5 more years. You can sign one or 2 of those players and see how it works out. Than when rookies are up for big contract, those players you signed will be coming off theirs. Either way we already know they're going after top FA's next year.

Also as I said above, never really believe in a player can't develop playing behind a star...imo

Seriously??

We already traded Russell, and you yourself have already pointed out that means that we would likely get rid of Randle if not more of our young core in order to sign 2 max free agents. How would going from a roster or all good young players to a guy in his mid 30s like LBJ and another veteran like George not shorten our window?

Rob said during game that they would have cap space for two max players next year. As far as Randle, I think unless he has a monster year, he's gone anyways. Maybe even if he has one. But they'll have close to 50 mil with KCP 17.8m, Lopez 22m and Brewer 7.5m coming off books anyway. Than if they want to bring Randle back, they can sign him after they get FA's they want, can go over cap to sign him.

So you're proving my point. Get rid of Randle & Russell and add James & George our window becomes now and it's shorter.

Didn't say anything about James, and think Lopez/Kuzma is looking like very good trade for Russell. And don't think Randle is that big of a loss, if he hasn't improved. But I said above ,they don't have to get rid of Randle to sign 2 max players, they just resign him after. Can go over cap to resign Randle.

https://twitter.com/forumbluegold/status/886801371600637954

Kuzma might turn out to be better than Randle anyway

Think it will come down too what position they need to improve with. JCP could have a great year and he might be one of the players they resign. Ball might look great, so they won't need a pg.

Like you said ,Kuzma might play his way into more mins and make Nance or Randle trade bait. Or they might just want proven stars and core to come off bench for depth and continue to develop.

Was hoping to get rid of Deng, by using Randle. WE will see what happens

One thing about getting Kuzma in the Russell trade. That trade may not have been the prerequiste to get him.

The lakers said he was their target all along. If the Russell trade had not been made then they would have taken him one pick later at 28 instead of 27.

So even without the trade we would have gotten him barring the slim chance that Jersey had Kuzma pegged as their pick at 27.

In all likely hood the player we would have lost without the trade was Hart who we took at 28.

So the trade probably was Russell for Lopez and Hart.

Doubtful.

He's already a better shooter.

And Randle is a double-double machine with uncomparable speed and floor pacing for his height

With short wingspan, low IQ so far, especially on defense , and can't shoot. Guess we'll find out how much work he's put in next season.

I think Randle is the man! Let's see what he looks like since he's in better shape

Great. �'�🏼

Lol better rebounder, better finisher, better ball handler, better passer, probably a much better scorer at the NBA level, more athletic and bigger, etc. etc.

Yeah, lets at least not compare a late pick that hasn't played an NBA minute to a guy that's showed a ton of potential in the NBA already.

Don't know about more athletic, and Kuzma is s little taller, with longer wingspan. And I'm going by them at same point coming into league. Kuzma has looked way better than Randle did in summer league. Also Randle not a better finisher, unless your counting just dunks. Lol

Not against Randle, think Kuzma will push him and Nance to get better. But if Kuzma plays anywhere near what he did in SL, think Randle will be out the door. Just based on money.

Kuzma is not taller. They are both 6'9. But one has the body of a small forward and the other the body of a truck. Randle is obviously stronger and he's more athletic. Randle is a better finisher too. You are putting way too much into summer league. It's not even preseason. Randle looked great in preseason against pros when he was younger than Kuzma. Does that mean anything? Not really. But it's means slightly more than Kuzma looking good against mostly non NBA players. Kuzma will not look anything like this in the regular season and I doubt he pushes either guy for playing time. Of course it's possible, I'm just not jumping on any hype train till I see it in meaningful games. If it happens then, then I will get excited.

Might?! Kuzma is a knockdown shooter with excellent range, he really hustles on defense, 1 on 1 and weakside team defense. He's got all the movies in the post, ambidextrous, has high bball IQ and he brings it EVERY NIGHT, not only when he feels like it. Randle is neither of those things - can't shoot, poor defender with short arms, doesn't have a great IQ. Kuzma is a already a way better 2 way player than Randle is.

Also wanted to take the opportunity to say a couple of things about previous posts.

1. Waaaay too many excessively long posts about unattainable players, like Embiid or The Greek Freak, who are either RFA or simply under contract for a long time. This isn't fantasy league thread, so there is no point of dreaming about what Lakers would look like with a random All Star on the team, who they have zero chance of getting.

2. To those, who don't want PG13 because of Ingram playing same position - PG13 is 6'8" and he's a twiner, perfectly capable of playing a shooting guard, which he has done for Pacers in years past, for very long stretches. He would be a perfect fit at the 2 next to Ingram, and will not affect BI's playing time at all.

3. I agree Vander Blue would be a cheap replacement to JC. They do have same skill set, same age and if Lakers get 2 max guys to say Yes next summer - JC will have to be moved for sure. So, giving Blue 3 year deal with years 2,3 team option is not a bad idea. I think if Lakers don't another team might lock him up.

Ok,if you say so!!!! But I say Randle isn't on team come 2019. And that's nothing to do with Kuzma, I think Randle is just what he was supposed to get coming out of draft, a nice rotation player. Maybe he'll still surprise me.

Yeah, I think Kuzma will take Randle spot if he plays like he did in the Summer League

Apollon, Lighten up. It's the middle of summer. How many times can we talk about Ball's passing? We won't have serious discussions about the team and players till camp. Think of this as hanging around the house and throwing hypotheticals around with friends, you know, who would you rather have as your QB, Brady or Rodgers.? It's all in fun. Just to engage in talk and exchanger ideas. We all know Embid and the Greek Freak won't be coming, at least not next year. Lebron, George and Westbrook could be other matters entirely and Magic will certainly make a play for the first two. If you find a thread too long or the topic not to your liking, don't read it. That's what I do. It's not reflection on the author, just my own tastes in subjects. Several posters have said that Kuzma madness must be mitigated by the fact this is summer league. That is a valid point. But there is another side to that. Kuzma can be like the vast majority of players we watched in the summer league. You know, kind of just there, getting six points a game, many of them higher picks than he was. But he stood out in a huge way. But it was not just the things he did and the numbers he threw up, it was how engaged and energetic he was in every game. How involved and with it he was. That is something I look for in a player. Take the opposite, like Elden Campbell. This guy had the size and skill but he looked like he was asleep out there. You all know what I mean. Another was Dariius Miles. He had a freak body. Should have been an 8 time all star. But when you watched him play, he seemed sleepy, kind of half step behind....

We have *very* different ideas about purpose and intended usage of sports forums. For my literature needs I read books, and once in a while a worthy newspaper article on one of the topics I care about. If I hop onto a sports forum, in order to spend 10-15 minutes to read news and opinions from half a dozen different threads and like 50 people, I'm not going to spend those 15 minutes reading and analyzing a single post, which is a 5-page essay. You have the right to type as much as you like, but I honestly believe that's a misuse of a sports forum and not too many people would care enough to waste 15 minutes of their time on reading thoughts of just one person. I've learned long ago from compiling and reading work related email that nobody likes to read essays, and if you keep it short and to the point your communications will carry much more weight and it is much more likely that whatever point you really wanted to convey will actually be recognized. Most people just skim through the essays like the ones you type, and me personally - I don't even do that. There is a time and a place and I believe sports forum is not the place, and I don't have the time to spend 15 minutes on a single post.

Appollon, You're a huge condratiction. You just told me what your not looking for in a post yet you read mine! Physician heal thyself... And stay away from what you claim you don't like! Very odd. Anyway as you correctly pointed out I can write as I wish so I guess the rest is up to you. Follow your stated scruples or not. Wanted to get back to another basket ball point you made that I didn't have time to address before, that being Embid can play shooting guard so no problem bringing in George. You might be right if Embid improved his shot which I think he will. But there is more to that than the surface you hit on. The deeper question is is that his natural position, the one where we will get the best Embid? Let me give you an example. When we got Magic the lakers were reticent about playing him at the point. He was big. And we had an all star point in Nixon. At the start Nixon kept that spot. But it didn't take long for Magic to show he was the guy who should handle the ball. You know what happened from there. But what if the lakers had said, well, we have an all star at the point already and you have the size and skill to play forward so that is what you'll play. What would have happened? Magic was so great its not hard to guess. He would have been a many time all star and hall of fame player. One of the great forward's ever. But he wouldn't have been The Magic Johson we know, would he? Not the greatest point and legit GOAT candidate he is. Not the singularly most unique player in NBA history to this day. And Showtime would have been much different, and maybe....

SPQR, did I miss something?? Embid at sg??? Or did you mean LBJ and PG13 ?

So our team plan is to draft players and when they become good just let them go?

Ingram

Oh, okay. Thought Embid suddenly got shorter and lost 50 pds!!! Lol

Yeah he typed it over and over too

Randle has a 7'0" wingspan while Kuzma has a 7'0" and 1/4" wingspan. So doesn't that mean Kuzma also has those Kevin Willis T-Rex arms too or does that 1/4" give him that truly extra edge in arm length?

Maybe you're talking about their difference in standing reach? Randle's apparent Pygmy-esque 8'9" versus Kyle Kuzma's Andre the Giant pick an apple from a tree standing reach of 8'11 and 1/2"?

2.5" difference does make a difference when going for rebounds or trying to block shots, but I was going more of a visual personal impression, rather than exact measurements. Randle has short arms and small palms of hands and a body resembling barrel, from which Jim Beam squeezes out his Devil's Cut version. Neither of those things are good for a big, who is supposed to block shots, alter shots and grab boards. These things are obvious when you see him in person, or on big screen tv.

I wasn't even comparing Randle's reach to Kuzma's, just an observation, based on what average NBA big looks like. You can compare him to Ingram, who has the same hight, but has 7'3" wingspan and 9'1.5" standing reach. He's just not long enough to offer those things, that are expected from NBA big on defense. He could partially compensate for that if he had high bball IQ like Draymond Green, who is even shorter and has same standing reach Randle does, but manages to be very good defender by understanding weak side rotations, having good anticipation and getting into passing lanes. But Randle doesn't have that IQ, so he's not good as team defender either. For a big, you gotta have 1 of the 2 or both: protect the paint by blocking and changing shots, grabbing boards or be a good helper, weak side defender.

And on the other side of the ball you gotta be able to shoot, especially in Luke's offense. Randle can't do that either. Kuzma is a very capable shooter, and even though he may not be that much longer than Randle, he's much better defender. He has good defensive presence about him, understands rotations, active communicator as a team defender and he doesn't take possessions and games off on that end, like Randle does. People focus on his shooting because he shot the lights out in Vegas, but what many NBA scouts, GMs, coaches liked about him is how he always hustled on the other end.

You Sir, have to lay off that weed, or whatever it is that you're smoking, that causes you to misspell words, misspell my nickname, Joel Embiid's name, confuse different players from different teams I never mentioned (Embiid vs Ingram) and confuse who I said would be playing shooting guard position, if Lakers get PG13. Just say NO to drugs! And most importantly for the point you're making - you Sir, made incorrect assumption about me, reading one of your essays. I read only first 2-3 sentences in it, just because you mentioned me there. I never read that essay in full, same way I never read this one, to which I'm replying to.

Great response my man, lmao at Devil's cut.

You hit the nail on the head about Kuzma being the better defender but I just don't like when people always try to point out Randle's arms as the problem when it really isn't. Randle's problem is that he is still learning the game. He may have been a superb athlete in highschool and bigger than everyone else and the same goes for college but now he's in a league where he needs the skills to thrive. Randle has no jumpshot or confidence in taking one but in contrast Kuzma does. Randle doesn't rotate, doesn't move his feet well on defense and I don't believe anyone would balk at him if he was at least a good position defender which he isn't but has all the tools to learn and do well on that side because he's quick, fast and strong.

I also hope he learns that setting a screen and just standing there is low bball IQ, he needs to roll or flare out. I expect Randle to be better this season but also we can't gnome that he's about the same age as Kuzma, Randle was 19 when coming into the league and missed one year of basketball with a broken leg.