Relentless Randle the Pit Bull of the Lakers (P. 2)

Lakers News Surge Forum/Message Board » Lakers Blogs
Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Search This Topic:
 
BaadMaster
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 8541
votes: 98
Tempy wrote:
...It all comes down to where a team is at in the rebuild. At this moment I don't think Randle or Ingram are worth the max they can be offered. Fortunately that decision is a way off with Ingram...
Ingram, for the second pick in the draft, looks like a complete bust. I thought we drafted a deadly shooter, instead we got a dead shooter. In this three-point NBA, you need guys who can streak a bunch of threes in a row. Right now (spare me the Kuzma jokes), only Kuzma has shown the ability to hit four/five....


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 12759
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 50

kkennon1 wrote:
Is it 26m? I thought it started at 18m to 20m, definitely not give 26 if I'm running FO.

Rule of thumb way to work it out, under 6 years 25% of salary cap, between 6 & 10 30%, anything over 35%.

The actual amount is different but those numbers get you in the ball park


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 12759
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 50

BaadMaster wrote:
Ingram, for the second pick in the draft, looks like a complete bust. I thought we drafted a deadly shooter, instead we got a dead shooter. In this three-point NBA, you need guys who can streak a bunch of threes in a row. Right now (spare me the Kuzma jokes), only Kuzma has shown the ability to hit four/five threes in a row and score 15+ points in a quarter.

I had though BI was a super shooter -- especially when they said Ben Simmons was the blind guy and BI was the marksman. See how that worked out!

Since ZO is our point guard of the future, get rid of ANYBODY who can't hit threes like a sniper -- unless they are a rebounding fool like Randle.

Prediction: (And I was wrong as much as I was right): BI is a bum; trade him to get rid of Dung. Add some shooters, a center (or teach Lopez he is not The Beard) and we are good to go. Not Warriors level (who is?) but a winning team!

I wouldn't say he is a bust but he needs a lot more development. His driving has improved since last season maybe this summer he works on his shot.


kkennon1
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14286
Location: Phoenix, AZ
us.gif
votes: 23

BaadMaster wrote:
Ingram, for the second pick in the draft, looks like a complete bust. I thought we drafted a deadly shooter, instead we got a dead shooter. In this three-point NBA, you need guys who can streak a bunch of threes in a row. Right now (spare me the Kuzma jokes), only Kuzma has shown the ability to hit four/five threes in a row and score 15+ points in a quarter.

I had though BI was a super shooter -- especially when they said Ben Simmons was the blind guy and BI was the marksman. See how that worked out!

Since ZO is our point guard of the future, get rid of ANYBODY who can't hit threes like a sniper -- unless they are a rebounding fool like Randle.

Prediction: (And I was wrong as much as I was right): BI is a bum; trade him to get rid of Dung. Add some shooters, a center (or teach Lopez he is not The Beard) and we are good to go. Not Warriors level (who is?) but a winning team!

So Kuz going 1-5 from 3 last game makes him a bum going by what you're saying. And didn't BI score 25pt, 8 in the last 3 mins to win game.

So Randle was a bum ,now he's put some good games together so he's not anymore, Kuz was Kobe 2.0 ,than he wasn't, and now BI is a bum. Lmao !!! Maybe give 20 yr old a chance to develop, if you thought he was a star coming in ,you didn't pay attention to scouting reports. He was a player with high upside, but a project that would take 3-4 yrs.

Is Simmons a bum ???, because he has no outside shoot what so ever, but has NBA body and IQ to get to rim.


gemfow
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 12402
Location: Maryland
us.gif
votes: 181

Tempy wrote:
Exactly, rather than retain assets and have something to offer in trades, the obsession is to chase for a star and be left hanging when teams want to trade and rebuild. The Mavs have had huge amount of cap space every year and they have got worse year on year.

The NBA has completely changed from the days of old. Players don't need big markets for endorsements or shoe deals. The ease of travel means they can live where ever they want in the off season. Players don't care for rivalries any more, they would rather team up and win than go it alone and be the man.

Mavs screwed up when they gutted their whole roster a few years back in hopes of signing guys. Luckily fir them they landed Harrison Barnes and now drafted Dennis Smith Jr. plus they were set back when DeAndre Jordan reneged on his promise to sign with the Cavs


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 12759
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 50

gemfow wrote:
Mavs screwed up when they gutted their whole roster a few years back in hopes of signing guys. Luckily fir them they landed Harrison Barnes and now drafted Dennis Smith Jr. plus they were set back when DeAndre Jordan reneged on his promise to sign with the Cavs

Which all goes back to thinking you can get more with the cap space. Barnes is an interesting comparison to Randle. Many feel Randle should be a given a bigger role, just as Barnes when he was with the Warriors, but I don't think Harrison has really lived up to that bigger role. Which many believe would be the case with Randle, aka not wanting to commit a lot of salary to him.


JJCali
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 8543

us.gif
votes: 22

Tempy wrote:
It all comes down to where a team is at in the rebuild. At this moment I don't think Randle or Ingram are worth the max they can be offered. Fortunately that decision is a way off with Ingram.

As we all know, a decision needs to be made on Randle. If the team was already over the cap, it's an easy decision to just sign him at almost any cost. The Lakers are not in this position, every dollar matters while a team is under the cap. Does signing PG13 or even LBJ, then resigning Randle make the roster contenders?

IMO I don't see any marquee free agents coming. So is bringing back Randle and losing a huge chunk of the cap space worth it for the long term? Any future success comes down to how well Ingram/Ball/Kuz develop. Randle is a nice player in the right system, I just don't think he is the future of the franchise. I wouldn't over pay to keep him around, not with so many other needs on the roster, like a center, a legit shooter, and a back up point.

Completely disagree. Losing Randle would be a huge loss for us. If we let him walk, everyone on here will be complaining about it down the road. Guarantee it! Also disagree that if no free agent is coming here that it would make more sense to let Randle walk. That's a head scratcher for me.


JJCali
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 8543

us.gif
votes: 22

gemfow wrote:
There are teams who lack talent with cap space who can offer what you feel he isn’t worth and then what do you have? Oh yeah, cap space to offer to a player who would like to see more talent on the roster, not less.

Lol, well said Gem.

Apparently cap space is more important than good, young talented players.


kkennon1
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14286
Location: Phoenix, AZ
us.gif
votes: 23

JJCali wrote:
Completely disagree. Losing Randle would be a huge loss for us. If we let him walk, everyone on here will be complaining about it down the road. Guarantee it! Also disagree that if no free agent is coming here that it would make more sense to let Randle walk. That's a head scratcher for me.

Don't think he meant let him go, but want him back at right price. Don't think even you think he's worth 25m(although I couldn't be wrong). Which is what his max would be !!!


JJCali
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 8543

us.gif
votes: 22

kkennon1 wrote:
Don't think he meant let him go, but want him back at right price. Don't think even you think he's worth 25m(although I couldn't be wrong). Which is what his max would be !!!

No, I don't think he's worth that. And don't get me wrong, I get what he was saying, but to me it sounded like he'd rather have cap space than Randle. Which is where I differ. Obviously we all want him at the cheapest possible price. But I'd rather slightly overpay as Gem stated than to let him walk for nothing. Or to save cap space to chase Veterans.


kkennon1
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14286
Location: Phoenix, AZ
us.gif
votes: 23

JJCali wrote:
No, I don't think he's worth that. And don't get me wrong, I get what he was saying, but to me it sounded like he'd rather have cap space than Randle. Which is where I differ. Obviously we all want him at the cheapest possible price. But I'd rather slightly overpay as Gem stated than to let him walk for nothing. Or to save cap space to chase Veterans.

Depends on what you think overpay is !!!


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 12759
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 50

JJCali wrote:
Completely disagree. Losing Randle would be a huge loss for us. If we let him walk, everyone on here will be complaining about it down the road. Guarantee it! Also disagree that if no free agent is coming here that it would make more sense to let Randle walk. That's a head scratcher for me.

I didn't say they should let him walk, but they have to be open to the prospect of it happening. If another team offers an overpaid deal to him it's not wise to match imo. Right now the roster is devoid of talent, how does throwing Randle a big deal fix that? It makes it harder down the line to get in talent if the money is gone.

As an example, they pay Randle $18m and sign PG13 to a max deal. What do they do at Center? The cap space is gone and the franchise is what, a 6th seed? OKC have a way better roster and are sitting in 5th. The franchise needs a lot of improvement from Randle, Kuz, Ball and Ingram to get to contender status if that happens.

Why would ring chasers come when they have way better chance of winning in Golden State and the Rockets.

The object of each summer is to get better, I don't think Randle coming back necessarily does that unless he fixes his flaws. Which is a big if, again imo.


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 12759
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 50

JJCali wrote:
No, I don't think he's worth that. And don't get me wrong, I get what he was saying, but to me it sounded like he'd rather have cap space than Randle. Which is where I differ. Obviously we all want him at the cheapest possible price. But I'd rather slightly overpay as Gem stated than to let him walk for nothing. Or to save cap space to chase Veterans.

I've been against this cap space idea from the first year Jim and Mitch tried it. It all comes down to bringing in players or keeping players, at the right price. Randle wasn't offered a contract extension, which to me indicates they don't want to pay him much. I think Randle will get overpaid by another team, such as the Mavs. I don't think it's the right play to match.

He doesn't necessarily have to walk for free, they can sign and trade.


JJCali
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 8543

us.gif
votes: 22

Tempy wrote:
I didn't say they should let him walk, but they have to be open to the prospect of it happening. If another team offers an overpaid deal to him it's not wise to match imo. Right now the roster is devoid of talent, how does throwing Randle a big deal fix that? It makes it harder down the line to get in talent if the money is gone.

As an example, they pay Randle $18m and sign PG13 to a max deal. What do they do at Center? The cap space is gone and the franchise is what, a 6th seed? OKC have a way better roster and are sitting in 5th. The franchise needs a lot of improvement from Randle, Kuz, Ball and Ingram to get to contender status if that happens.

Why would ring chasers come when they have way better chance of winning in Golden State and the Rockets.

The object of each summer is to get better, I don't think Randle coming back necessarily does that unless he fixes his flaws. Which is a big if, again imo.

Ok. I think we have a slight disagreement on Randle, and a bigger disagreement on the direction the team should take. To your first point, I don't think that the team is devoid of talent at all. They're just young. But definitely not lacking talent (IMO).

Secondly, I absolutely do not think that losing Randle makes us a more talented team! $18M would be a fair deal. Spending that $18M elsewhere would likely not bring in the same level of talent, imo.

My third point would be that I do not currently buy into the whole throwing money at free agents as the best approach to getting better. I believe we should be using our cap space to re-sign our own free agents instead of overspending on older players that'll get us to what, the 3rd seed? Then all our cap space is gone, we let our young players leave for nothing and we have an aging roster. The best plan is to at least see what Ball, Clarkson, Ingram, Kuzma & Randle can do and then try to improve around them.


JJCali
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 8543

us.gif
votes: 22

kkennon1 wrote:
Depends on what you think overpay is !!!

I definitely would not go over $20 million. He can walk if someone else offers him that.

I'd try to get him for as cheap as possible, obviously, and promise him a bigger role with the Lakers (so long as he continues to improve), but I think around $18 million would be about my highest offer for him.


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 12759
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 50

JJCali wrote:
Ok. I think we have a slight disagreement on Randle, and a bigger disagreement on the direction the team should take. To your first point, I don't think that the team is devoid of talent at all. They're just young. But definitely not lacking talent (IMO).

Secondly, I absolutely do not think that losing Randle makes us a more talented team! $18M would be a fair deal. Spending that $18M elsewhere would likely not bring in the same level of talent, imo.

My third point would be that I do not currently buy into the whole throwing money at free agents as the best approach to getting better. I believe we should be using our cap space to re-sign our own free agents instead of overspending on older players that'll get us to what, the 3rd seed? Then all our cap space is gone, we let our young players leave for nothing and we have an aging roster. The best plan is to at least see what Ball, Clarkson, Ingram, Kuzma & Randle can do and then try to improve around them.

The roster lacks a go to scorer and 3point shooting. At the end of the season add a center and a back up point to the list. There isn't enough money to address all those needs adequately and keep Randle. I just don't think he is going to be happy with the amount the Lakers will offer.

The cap space is gone regardless once Ingram, Ball and Kuzma come off their rookie deals. If and it's a big if, they get offered close to max deals. So it's use it this summer or next or it's gone.

Right now a core of Randle, Ball, Ingram and Kuz isn't going to win a championship.


kkennon1
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14286
Location: Phoenix, AZ
us.gif
votes: 23

JJCali wrote:
I definitely would not go over $20 million. He can walk if someone else offers him that.

I'd try to get him for as cheap as possible, obviously, and promise him a bigger role with the Lakers (so long as he continues to improve), but I think around $18 million would be about my highest offer for him.

I could live with that, but I don't know of FO can. Lol


kkennon1
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14286
Location: Phoenix, AZ
us.gif
votes: 23

JJCali wrote:
Ok. I think we have a slight disagreement on Randle, and a bigger disagreement on the direction the team should take. To your first point, I don't think that the team is devoid of talent at all. They're just young. But definitely not lacking talent (IMO).

Secondly, I absolutely do not think that losing Randle makes us a more talented team! $18M would be a fair deal. Spending that $18M elsewhere would likely not bring in the same level of talent, imo.

My third point would be that I do not currently buy into the whole throwing money at free agents as the best approach to getting better. I believe we should be using our cap space to re-sign our own free agents instead of overspending on older players that'll get us to what, the 3rd seed? Then all our cap space is gone, we let our young players leave for nothing and we have an aging roster. The best plan is to at least see what Ball, Clarkson, Ingram, Kuzma & Randle can do and then try to improve around them.

Don't think team is lacking talent, but I don't know at this point what level of talent it is. When I look around league and see young talent you could build around, that could get you deep in playoffs I see players like AD, Embiid, Leonard , Towns etc. Don't see our young guys at that level, and don't know if they'll get there. When I look at our roster, I see nice young players, that would benefit from a star player around them to open things up. Imo


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 12759
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 50

JJCali wrote:
I definitely would not go over $20 million. He can walk if someone else offers him that.

I'd try to get him for as cheap as possible, obviously, and promise him a bigger role with the Lakers (so long as he continues to improve), but I think around $18 million would be about my highest offer for him.

Derrick Favors is putting up very similar numbers at $11 million. TJ Warren at $11.8 (next year's deal). There is no way Randle signs a deal for that money.


JJCali
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 8543

us.gif
votes: 22

Tempy wrote:
The roster lacks a go to scorer and 3point shooting. At the end of the season add a center and a back up point to the list. There isn't enough money to address all those needs adequately and keep Randle. I just don't think he is going to be happy with the amount the Lakers will offer.

The cap space is gone regardless once Ingram, Ball and Kuzma come off their rookie deals. If and it's a big if, they get offered close to max deals. So it's use it this summer or next or it's gone.

Right now a core of Randle, Ball, Ingram and Kuz isn't going to win a championship.

Yes. Let's use it... on Randle. Of course that core isn't going to win a championship right now. Adding George & James still won't help them win a championship right now. But if they can keep that group together and not waste money now on those free agents that will never win a title, they could win a title in a couple of years by having cap space to add a shooter and a center.


kkennon1
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14286
Location: Phoenix, AZ
us.gif
votes: 23

JJCali wrote:
Yes. Let's use it... on Randle. Of course that core isn't going to win a championship right now. Adding George & James still won't help them win a championship right now. But if they can keep that group together and not waste money now on those free agents that will never win a title, they could win a title in a couple of years by having cap space to add a shooter and a center.

How they going to have cap space in a couple years if they have to pay their own players about hit FA. Also what happens if they don't improve , they just turnout to be good players, not stars. What do you if you give Randle 18m and he still can't shoot and it turns out what you see now is what you get? I don't see that as well spent money. I just don't get the whole Randle thing, Lakers didn't even want him, they tried to trade pick in that draft. He's a good player, pretty much what scouting reports said, but not a star or projected to be one. But I guess in this new CBA, you have to spend money on good rotation players. Hell crap players are getting paid..smh

Disagree about adding a star or stars in FA wouldn't help , think it would do wonders for young team to find out what it feels like to win and get playoff experience. And you never know what can happen once you get in playoffs.


JJCali
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 8543

us.gif
votes: 22

We gotta keep Randle. No one is more responsible for our recent winning than he is, if we're being honest with ourselves.


userpete1037
LNS HOF Gold
Posts: 19939
Location: Kobe, Kalifornia
us.gif
votes: 18

We just might. I ain't crossing my fingers though....lol.


kkennon1
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14286
Location: Phoenix, AZ
us.gif
votes: 23

JJCali wrote:
We gotta keep Randle. No one is more responsible for our recent winning than he is, if we're being honest with ourselves.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/DanDuangdao/status/959593392748 429312https://twitter.com/DanDuangdao/status/959647035770126337https:/  /twitter.com/_MatthewPeralta/status/959647233728692226[/tweet]


JJCali
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 8543

us.gif
votes: 22

kkennon1 wrote:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/DanDuangdao/status/95959339274842931 2https://twitter.com/DanDuangdao/status/959647035770126337https://twit ter.com/_MatthewPeralta/status/959647233728692226[/tweet]

We can pray we get him for a great deal like that!!


kkennon1
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14286
Location: Phoenix, AZ
us.gif
votes: 23

JJCali wrote:
We can pray we get him for a great deal like that!!

Definitely would be great !!! But Cuban would love to steal him away.


JJCali
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 8543

us.gif
votes: 22

kkennon1 wrote:
Definitely would be great !!! But Cuban would love to steal him away.

True. Unless we actullay do sign 2 max guys right away (incredibly doubtful!), and use all our cap space, I doubt anyone will even make him an offer right away, because he's restricted.


kkennon1
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14286
Location: Phoenix, AZ
us.gif
votes: 23

JJCali wrote:
True. Unless we actullay do sign 2 max guys right away (incredibly doubtful!), and use all our cap space, I doubt anyone will even make him an offer right away, because he's restricted.

While if they do sign 2 max guys ,than he's a goner, unless Buss kids doesn't mind paying luxury tax.

But hope they keep him, but if he's not in their plans, than trade him if something good is offered. Better than losing him for nothing!!! Imo


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 9286
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 291

JJCali wrote:
We gotta keep Randle. No one is more responsible for our recent winning than he is, if we're being honest with ourselves.

Cali,

Right now Randle is playing like the best guy on the whole team including Kuzma.

By the way, he is rated as top defensive switching big man in the whole league.


JJCali
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 8543

us.gif
votes: 22

SPQR wrote:
Cali,

Right now Randle is playing like the best guy on the whole team including Kuzma.

By the way, he is rated as top defensive switching big man in the whole league.

Yes! I'm not claiming he has the highest upside on our team, but this season, he is our best player. Thank you for that stat btw. I didn't know that. But I have heard people from around the league say he has become a good defender. Which is one of the main things we've all talked about him needing to develop! Now all we need is that midrange shot! Lol


BaadMaster
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 8541
votes: 98

Randle is 23 years old. Keep him. As I said in another trail, youth is essential in this new NBA.

The old saying was, "You can't teach height"

Now it is, "You can't teach youth!"

SPQR wrote:
Cali,

Right now Randle is playing like the best guy on the whole team including Kuzma...

True...but that is because as soon as Kuzma or Clarkly have big nights, Luke benches them if they miss a few in a row. Talk about not instilling confidence.

And he always plays KCP big minutes no matter how bad he shoots.

Luke sucks.


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 9286
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 291

Cali,

If he develops that jumper, then what will people harp about? They don't like the way his face looks? Remember, Randle missed a whole year with that broken leg. He's coming on like mad. People better be real careful talking about trading a young player like that who is really coming into his own.

Especially a tough, physical guy. Besides Randle we don't have any like that. And almost no team has a guy as violent and relentless.

Baad, they need to stick with the young guys. It's all they really have. Randle, Ball, Ingram and Kuzma. Let's see what that group looks like two years from now and go from there.


Shepherd
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 10980

ez.gif
votes: 55

SPQR wrote:
Cali,

Right now Randle is playing like the best guy on the whole team including Kuzma.

By the way, he is rated as top defensive switching big man in the whole league.

If only he could grow longer arms and shoot.


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 9286
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 291

Shep,

The arms ain't gonna happen, lol. But the shooting still could.

I'm pretty happy with what I'm seeing from him this year. Unless one expected him to be this overwhelming super star by this point in his career, and I didn't, I think his contributions and play are pretty good and on par with the expected growth of a young player.


JJCali
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 8543

us.gif
votes: 22

Shepherd wrote:
If only he could grow longer arms and shoot.

I think this is exactly SPQR's point regarding what else are people going to complain about with Randle? Arm length is a means to an end. Like a tall QB. Drew Bree's has been just fine not being tall. If Randle can rebound, pass, score in the paint, play good defense and like you said, develop a good shot, who the hell cares how long his arms are??


JJCali
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 8543

us.gif
votes: 22

SPQR wrote:
Cali,

If he develops that jumper, then what will people harp about? They don't like the way his face looks? Remember, Randle missed a whole year with that broken leg. He's coming on like mad. People better be real careful talking about trading a young player like that who is really coming into his own.

Especially a tough, physical guy. Besides Randle we don't have any like that. And almost no team has a guy as violent and relentless.

Baad, they need to stick with the young guys. It's all they really have. Randle, Ball, Ingram and Kuzma. Let's see what that group looks like two years from now and go from there.

Exactly. Couldn't have said it any better myself. No mater how much he produces people will complain.


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 9286
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 291

So here's an article where Wojnarowski is quoted as saying the Lakers will not be investing in Randle for "different" reasons than other players on the trade block. That's bad news because Woj usually is accurate in his reporting. So what are those different reasons? Because unlike the other players who are on the Lakers trade block he is playing too good to stay? Lol.

I mean it's freaking ludicrous. So you draft this young guy fairly high. You hope he becomes something good. Then when he starts to do just that, starts to become what you hoped, or even more, you decide, hey, let's trade him!! WTF.

So by that "logic", when and if Ingram and Ball start to develop and produce like Randle, we should trade them too, because, you know, they are becoming the players we hoped they would be. Makes sense to me. And if that is how we are operating, we need to get Kuzma on the block now too because he plays pretty well already. Or maybe wait till he makes the all star team then ship him.

And what about Hart. He's getting better. Can we trade him for a nice 32 year old vet? It's something they need to consider.

You know, Mitch really turned me off the last few years and I really turned off the Lakers on TV because of his moves. Just didn't feel like watching the mess he made. If Magic/Pelika trade Randle I will start getting that same feeling for them. I will also start getting that Jim Buss/Mitch feeling for our new dynamic duo.

Jim and Mitch are gone. Great. But that does not guarantee Magic and Pelinka are any good.

https://www.silverscreenandroll.com/201 ... dline-news


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 12759
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 50

SPQR wrote:
So here's an article where Wojnarowski is quoted as saying the Lakers will not be investing in Randle for "different" reasons than other players on the trade block. That's bad news because Woj usually is accurate in his reporting. So what are those different reasons? Because unlike the other players who are on the Lakers trade block he is playing too good to stay? Lol.

I mean it's freaking ludicrous. So you draft this young guy fairly high. You hope he becomes something good. Then when he starts to do just that, starts to become what you hoped, or even more, you decide, hey, let's trade him!! WTF.

So by that "logic", when and if Ingram and Ball start to develop and produce like Randle, we should trade them too, because, you know, they are becoming the players we hoped they would be. Makes sense to me. And if that is how we are operating, we need to get Kuzma on the block now too because he plays pretty well already. Or maybe wait till he makes the all star team then ship him.

And what about Hart. He's getting better. Can we trade him for a nice 32 year old vet? It's something they need to consider.

You know, Mitch really turned me off the last few years and I really turned off the Lakers on TV because of his moves. Just didn't feel like watching the mess he made. If Magic/Pelika trade Randle I will start getting that same feeling for them. I will also start getting that Jim Buss/Mitch feeling for our new dynamic duo.

Jim and Mitch are gone. Great. But that does not guarantee Magic and Pelinka are any good.

https://www.silverscreenandroll.com/201 ... dline-news

The FO are obsessed with cap space and think its the answer to all the problems. It is a crazy strategy to pursue when the roster has some nice young pieces already. The roster just needs pieces, the right pieces, like a legit shooter for example, adding to help with the development.

I didn't like it when Mitch and Jim tried it, but at least it made some sense, Kobe was getting old, the whole roster was, it was the last roll of the dice for a championship.


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 9286
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 291

Tempy,

Yep. You are right on. It's all about clearing space to bring in vets..... So we can lose to Golden State.

It makes no sense at all. Except to Magic so he can say, see, I turned it around fast!

I know everyone is tired of losing but when you dig a hole as big as Mitch and Jim did, years of mismanagement it takes a long time to climb out.

They have some good young players. There is finally light at the end of the tunnel. Just some patience now and they could have a nice long term team. Once the Warriors start to break up or age its gonna be there for them. Or other, smarter teams that looked at this realistically.


Ray
Die-Hard Laker Fan
Posts: 1686
Location: Ray
votes: 25

I love Randle, but I can't stand the way he has pouted this year over extension talks or minutes or starts. Then on top of that people go at our FO about the situation we have created with him and his extension or trading him. The crazy thing is Marcus smart is in the exact same situation as Randle. I have not heard him saying anything or change the way he plays. Or about how the Celtics FO is creating this locker room drama with the circus around Marcus smart.

At the end of the day Randle signed a rookie deal with us, that gave us the power to do what we are doing now. We are not doing nothing wrong to him for him to not put the effort towards every game for us.


Ray
Die-Hard Laker Fan
Posts: 1686
Location: Ray
votes: 25

SPQR wrote:
Tempy,

Yep. You are right on. It's all about clearing space to bring in vets..... So we can lose to Golden State.

It makes no sense at all. Except to Magic so he can say, see, I turned it around fast!

I know everyone is tired of losing but when you dig a hole as big as Mitch and Jim did, years of mismanagement it takes a long time to climb out.

They have some good young players. There is finally light at the end of the tunnel. Just some patience now and they could have a nice long term team. Once the Warriors start to break up or age its gonna be there for them. Or other, smarter teams that looked at this realistically.

There will always be another GSW team. Lets say the GSW are no longer contenders in 4 years. Does that mean we now have a level playing field? I doubt it, there will be some other Super team that looks to dominate the NBA. Lets review:

Dominating the league:

2000 - 2004 - Lakers

2008 - 2010 - Lakers

2011 - 2014 - Heat

2015 - 2020 - GSW

So if we fast forward to 2020 and GSW is probably still dominating, in a 20 year span there was only 3 years in which one (same) team didn't make the finals 3 years in a row. And actually during those 3 years Spurs won the Finals twice.

All I am saying there will always be that top team in the NBA that's is an obvious choice to make it to the finals. And most likely win. And most likely the Team will have been formed via trade not draft only. If we look back at the teams above who went to finals 3+ years in a row, they were all formed via trades/FA signings more then draft except GSW.

So the whole notion of just sit and wait to GSW to get bad is stupid. Also further more. Given Ingram and Lonzo current talent, we will be expected to pay up on their next deal. So by the time GSW slow down, we will have to cough up 25 million for both Lonzo and Ingram each. So if we don't fill up our cap space before then, there contracts will eat it up and we will be mediocre.


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 9286
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 291
Ray, I understand your point and its legitimate in my view but I will take issue with some of your conclusions. First off, this Golden State team is very special. More so than the second Lakers team you mentioned or that Heat team. No offense to those teams but they weren't on Golden States level. So while good teams do rise, in all sports, as time goes by, this Golden State team is much more than another good or even great team that came along. It is that special. Now let's examine another of your points. Golden State was built almost exclusively through drafting young players or trading for picks that brought young players or trading for young players. Did they also get and add veterans? Sure, all teams do. And of course you had the blockbuster signing of Durant. But remember two things, they had already won an NBA title before and had set the NBA single season record and were one game shy of winning a second title before they got Durant. There's a pretty big difference between that and a Lakers team that can't even manage a winning record let alone make the playoffs now, right? Also, did Golden State trade Curry, Thompson or Green to get Durant? To make that cap space? No. There is no comparison between those teams except this one: right now we are kind of where they were when they first got Curry, Thompson and Green. Now did they trade those guys to create cap space to bring in vets for a faster turnaround? No. They rode out the growing pains to develop something long term and maybe special. Do you think they would be what they are if say they had traded Thompson or Curry or Green for some vets or vet cap space? I don't. Let's go back....


kkennon1
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14286
Location: Phoenix, AZ
us.gif
votes: 23

SPQR

Agree with you about some of what you said, and your right, you don't trade Curry, Thompson and Green. But I also don't see any of our young guys getting to that talent level, guess time well tell.

I would like to see Randle stay, but as I and others have said, at right price. I see a very good ,limited young player. But don't see special or franchise player. And if he's not in FO plans, I'd rather get something for him than him walk for nothing.


Ray
Die-Hard Laker Fan
Posts: 1686
Location: Ray
votes: 25
SPQR GSW had extreme luck for everything to fall perfectly in place for a team to be capable of having 4 legitimate max players. And I don't mean paying 4 max salaries, but 4 actual players that are worth a max salary. 1st: They had to draft the young talent. Bravo for them drafting Curry / Klay / Draymond, their scouting skills and luck on that go hand in hand. 2nd: Klay got his extension before the huge cap jump. 3rd: Draymond got his extension before the huge cap jump. 4th: They needed Curry to have ankle injuries in order for him to sign suck a cheap extension. (without they can't afford Durrant that last summer) Chances of another team doing that is so slim, that is not the normal way to build a contender in this league over the last 20 years. I would say the only team to do it consistently is the Spurs. Sure we are a similar track as them with out young core. So at this point we need: 1st Ingram / Lonzo / Kuzma / Randle to at least be consider for an all star within the next couple years. 2: We need a major injury to Randle so we can re sign him cheaper. 3: Another huge cap jump so Lonzo and Ingram max deals don't kill our cap room. 4: Then a top 5 player sign for 10 million less to help us out. ^^^That is a lot of thing to go right for us, if we are choosing to not go the route of trading for players more so then out talent. I don't agree with moving Lonzo / Kuzma / Ingram for cap space this summer, our FO doesn't either. Our FO is only considering Randle and Clarkson, Nance and they should. As of today I don't agree with having a....


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 9286
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 291
Kennon, Ray: I don't think our young players will be the equal of Curry, Thompson and Green. But they don't have to be for us to be a possible champ in a few years. That's my point. I don't think anyone's will be. There won't be another Golden State waiting for us in a few years. That team was a freak. The biggest threat could be the Philly two of Simmons and Embid if Embid can stay healthy. That duo may end up very special. Then we will have to see what Fultz does if he ever plays again lol. And you're....


kkennon1
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14286
Location: Phoenix, AZ
us.gif
votes: 23
SPQR wrote:
Kennon, Ray: I don't think our young players will be the equal of Curry, Thompson and Green. But they don't have to be for us to be a possible champ in a few years. That's my point. I don't think anyone's will be. There won't be another Golden State waiting for us in a few years. That team was a freak. The biggest threat could be the Philly two of Simmons and Embid if Embid can stay healthy. That duo may end up very special. Then we will have to see what Fultz does if he ever plays again lol. And you're....


JJCali
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 8543

us.gif
votes: 22

Ray wrote:
I love Randle, but I can't stand the way he has pouted this year over extension talks or minutes or starts. Then on top of that people go at our FO about the situation we have created with him and his extension or trading him. The crazy thing is Marcus smart is in the exact same situation as Randle. I have not heard him saying anything or change the way he plays. Or about how the Celtics FO is creating this locker room drama with the circus around Marcus smart.

At the end of the day Randle signed a rookie deal with us, that gave us the power to do what we are doing now. We are not doing nothing wrong to him for him to not put the effort towards every game for us.

What circus is surrounding Randle?

The Celtics have made Smart available for trade, so the

Celtics may be trying to get rid of him.

I don't see Randle pouting or causing any drama. Randle is considered , by far, our absolute hustle guy, so not sure why you think he doesn't put in the effort.


JJCali
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 8543

us.gif
votes: 22

kkennon1 wrote:
SPQR

Agree with you about some of what you said, and your right, you don't trade Curry, Thompson and Green. But I also don't see any of our young guys getting to that talent level, guess time well tell.

I would like to see Randle stay, but as I and others have said, at right price. I see a very good ,limited young player. But don't see special or franchise player. And if he's not in FO plans, I'd rather get something for him than him walk for nothing.

NOBODY saw Curry, Thompson or Green getting to that level either.

Not to mention, at age 23, Randle is light years ahead of Green at that age.


kkennon1
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14286
Location: Phoenix, AZ
us.gif
votes: 23

JJCali wrote:
NOBODY saw Curry, Thompson or Green getting to that level either.

Not to mention, at age 23, Randle is light years ahead of Green at that age.

Disagree Curry came in playing like a future star, only thing that held him back were ankle problems. Thompson has always been great defensively, and came in shooting over 41% from 3 rookie season.

Lol, light years!!! Green is what I hope Randle can become, shooting and on defense.

So No!!! I currently don't see any of our guy's developing to that level, especially Curry's level. But I did say currently don't see it!!!


kkennon1
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14286
Location: Phoenix, AZ
us.gif
votes: 23

JJCali wrote:
What circus is surrounding Randle?

The Celtics have made Smart available for trade, so the

Celtics may be trying to get rid of him.

I don't see Randle pouting or causing any drama. Randle is considered , by far, our absolute hustle guy, so not sure why you think he doesn't put in the effort.

There have been more than a few games this year ,where he didn't look like he was giving a 100%, but has definitely been better lately.

JJ, I'm not against keeping Randle, think we both have said at right price. Just don't think FO feels the same way.


Options Quick Reply: RE: Relentless Randle the Pit Bull of the Lakers
register
You are an anonymous user- or .
Quote the last message
Attach signature (signatures can be changed in profile)
Notify me when a reply is posted
Don't Check Spelling
Note: Twitter & Youtube BBCODE Tags are no longer necessary. The system will automatically convert links to tweets & youtube videos.
   
 
Go To the Top of the ThreadGo Home
Post new topic   Reply to topic
register
You are an anonymous user- Register now or Log in Now!


Add our Los Angeles Lakers Blog RSS Feed, the Lakers Rumors RSS Feed, the Lakers News RSS feed, and the Lakers Forum RSS feed to get the latest Laker News and Rumors and Lakers Game info in your RSS/XML reader!