Farm team do farm team things.
. |
It's weird that you're thinking about the future when it comes to ''most of those players'', but all of a sudden the problem is roster construction now when it comes to having too many guards on the team.
Either the priority is 3 years from now, or it's today. It can't be both.
''We can't give in to player demands or we look weak'' is an absurd way of looking at it. You can just as easily say ''we can't ignore player demands or they get what they want anyway and we get nothing.''
If you base your team-building and trade decisions on what Lakers fans say on twitter you don't deserve a job as a GM.
Basketball.
We have no idea what the value of those draft picks will be. The last pick will convey in 24 or 25, Lebron will be in his 40s, and retired. Could the Lakers sign another superstar to pair along with AD yeah they could. Its also entirely possible they don’t, and considering how strong the west is might not even be a playoff team.
Ingram just turned in the best year he's ever had and was a legit all star. Hart was definitely one if the best bench players in the league?
What you got against them? Why should they be off a team that should easily afford them both.
And who cares about this asterisk bubble championship?
Ingram has huge gaps in his game still, but it's absurd to pretend he hasn't had a huge leap. He's going to get a max contract, he's likely to be here for at least the next couple of years, and he's a legitimate 20 point scorer on good efficiency. The fact that his defense is incredibly shoddy, that his decision making is suspect, and that his off-dribble shooting is nonexistent doesn't stop this fact being true.
Josh Hart was one of the only players on the team that we could rely on to actually put in effort in any given game this year, and was the best rebounder of his height in the entire NBA this season.
The idea that it's a foregone conclusion that both of them will definitely be gone in 2 or 3 years is kind of presumptive and not based on reality, I think. There's every chance that Hart, for example, sticks around longer than that purely on being really good at a few things and being cheap.
Could they both be gone? Sure, but if they're gone, they'll be gone in ways that benefit the team in other ways. A lot of people have suggested that Ingram will be our DeRozan: our good, but fundamentally flawed All Star who plays here for a while and does well but is ultimately used in a trade to acquire The Perfect Fit. If that's true, that still means Ingram has had value: he got us The Perfect Fit!
I mean you're quoting a section in which I say he's had a huge leap and is going to get a max and that the flaws in his game don't stop that being true. Do you want me to pretend that he's a flawless player now? I've conceded about 30000000 times this year that he's improved in ways that I didn't think likely and has become a much much better player than I thought he would, but I'm not going to suddenly pretend that he's God's Gift. If that's what you want from me, then I'm sorry you're just not going to get it. Find sycophancy elsewhere.
To suggest you need to act like he's God's gift is unnecessary hyperbole which was suggestedby no one.
You were super wrong about him last summer. Let it go dude. Highlighting and overstating his shortcomings isn't necessary every time you speak his name.
He's one of the best young players in the league. Very high probability he'll be here a while.
Let it go.
Whenever I address players, especially players who are going to be getting $25m+ paydays, I discuss them with both pros and cons. If hearing his cons discussed puts you in some sort of way, then that's fine, but you solve that by muting or whatever because I'm not going to stop taking a balanced approach on any player.
''You were super wrong about him last summer.'' - Yes, I know, as evidenced by me literally saying that in the post you're responding to.
Y’all need to stop entertaining this dude.
I'd like to have a coach first.
1. Get new coach
2. Draft a big man that can play defense. Or an elite shooter and move Reddick.
3. Sign Ingram.
4. Develop the young players.
5. Move Lonzo if he?s not playing at a high level.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The GM does what's best for the team, you don't let AD walk to Lakers just to spite them a year earlier...
Also you can't assume the draft picks will be ******** and the players won't be here in "2-3 years". If you want to assume then assume that they get moved for better pieces.
We all hate that the Lakers won but it was for the Pels good.
The dude was mailing it in before he was traded. Who's to say that he even played a full season for the rest of his time in a Pels uniform. You don't let a talent like that just walk without getting something for him.
I'm pretty sure most GMs would've done what that the Lakers did. The Lakers would've gotten AD eventually and we would've been building throughout the draft much slower than we are now. The deal allows us to make moves for different picks if those aren't to par during the draft(s) And we could even trade the excess of guards or the former Lakers for better players if they want to leave or don't fit. I hate the Lakers and the whole culture that's growing in the NBA but, all you do is try to build your squad the best you can and win.
R.I.P. to HunnyB/FlyGirl
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)