Has there been any signs that the Lakers really want Lonzo?

[True Lakers Fan]

Good question. Gonna be interesting to watch. I heard that Lonzo is considering working out for the Sixers. Not sure why he'd work out for them and not the Celtics.

Agree about the precarious position he's in because of his Dad. It's almost like his Dad is trying to force the Lakers hand. It would almost be worth it for the Lakers to not take him just to see Lavar meltdown. lol

Fortunately for him, from what I've read and heard, Magic likes him and if the Celtics don't take him, it looks like the Lakers will.

Fortunately for Lonzo, the Celtics from what I have heard do want Fultz because they would not hesitate to take Ball if they wanted him and if Lonzo wanted a career in the NBA, he would sign and play - Regardless of what what any player wants and quite frankly - for that kind of money - I'd play for the Celtics as well - Money is money

 

[trojanfan12]

if you could do that....you better take it and run.

Fact.

 

[tlance]

Fortunately for Lonzo, the Celtics from what I have heard do want Fultz because they would not hesitate to take Ball if they wanted him and if Lonzo wanted a career in the NBA, he would sign and play - Regardless of what what any player wants and quite frankly - for that kind of money - I'd play for the Celtics as well - Money is money

But, Ball doesn't have to play. He has his "Big Balla" shoes to fall back on.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

But, Ball doesn't have to play. He has his "Big Balla" shoes to fall back on.

He has to be a good player for that to work out

 

[shopson67]

Where are you guys getting that Ball to Philly isn't ideal? Basketball wise, its probably the best fit for both parties. Philly needs a PG. Ball checks all the boxes. They have Simmons that can play some point forward, but he's not going to be the main ball handler full time. He's not Giannis. But both him and Ball having the ability to run sets gives Philly a TON of offensive flexibility, especially considering Ball is big enough to play off ball. Him, Simmons, and Embiid on the court at the same time could be absolute hell to defend and if Ball could step up his defensive skills, would be hell to go against with all that length.

He actually fits better with Philly than he does LA because for as great as Ball's set up ability is, that Warriors motion offense that LA is trying to install requires scoring threats from damn near every position (that's why the ball movement is so pretty and lethal). If he's not aggressive looking to score (which he wasn't in college) and/or that funky shot mechanics is a problem in the NBA, that fit isn't as seamless.

I disagree that Simmons isn't going to be the main ball-handler. That is his bread and butter. If you're not going to run the offense through him, you're wasting his talents. Did they use the #1 pick on his hesitant jumper?

Choosing Ball to play off the ball is, once again, wasting his talent. Sure, every team wants multiple creators on the offense, but these are both guys that should have the offense run through them.

The fit is better in LA IMO because they desperately need a leader at PG to run the offense and set up scorers. Russell proved much more comfortable and effective down the stretch off the ball. While Ingram can be a primary ball handler, he isn't the answer to run the offense either IMO. Clarkson is very much a score-first player, more so than even Russell. The Lakers need that distributor.

That funky shot of Ball's is effective. It does make for a blockable shot, but he isn't going to take many contested shots, as he isn't typically looking for his own offense first.

 

[shopson67]

Lakers should take Ball and deal Randle/Russell for a true long term piece.

Rebuild around Ball, Ingram and Nance's D, plus that young euro at C.

Figure out the rest as you go.

That could very well happen. If they do end up with George, he won't play the 3 (which would block Ingram), so Russell is the odd man out at the 2. Randle can be unstoppable at times, but seems uninterested at D at times and hasn't developed that reliable jumper to round out his game yet.

 

[shopson67]

If those players were to be in the 2017 draft, can you make the argument that all three would go before Ball?

Crazy hypothetical, but if Lonzo, DAR, and Ingram were all available in 2015 or 2016 to draft at #2, who would the LAL have taken? Towns would have been #1 in 2015 and Simmons #1 in 2016. But, I don't know if I can clearly draw a line that DAR or Ingram would be picked ahead of Ball.

Again, I don't think either of our teams are going to be disappointed with either of Fultz/Ball/Jackson.

I don't personally see a fit for Jackson with the Lakers, as much as I liked him coming in. The 3 is locked down with Ingram, and the 2 appears to be with either Russell or a coming-soon George. Using the #2 on a rotation player seems excessive; Lakers need a true PG. For the Lakers, that threesome might be Fultz/Ball/Fox, with Isaac as a darkhorse (more likely with a trade down IMO though).

 

[wildturkey]

I disagree that Simmons isn't going to be the main ball-handler. That is his bread and butter. If you're not going to run the offense through him, you're wasting his talents. Did they use the #1 pick on his hesitant jumper?

Choosing Ball to play off the ball is, once again, wasting his talent. Sure, every team wants multiple creators on the offense, but these are both guys that should have the offense run through them.

The fit is better in LA IMO because they desperately need a leader at PG to run the offense and set up scorers. Russell proved much more comfortable and effective down the stretch off the ball. While Ingram can be a primary ball handler, he isn't the answer to run the offense either IMO. Clarkson is very much a score-first player, more so than even Russell. The Lakers need that distributor.

That funky shot of Ball's is effective. It does make for a blockable shot, but he isn't going to take many contested shots, as he isn't typically looking for his own offense first.

The Warriors motion offense that Luke runs is predicated on "positionless basketball". You don't need a set up man to distribute every thing out like a true PG. That's entirely the point. Everyone shares similar a skill set. The defense breaks down as the ball flings from set to set in a given possession because its defending the same threats from all over the court. Ball's bigger strengths are in a more traditional PG sense, which this new style eschews. They'd have to adjust to make it fit. Philly, Boston, those are teams where it would be easier transitions for the way he plays.

 

[Sparhawk]

I don't personally see a fit for Jackson with the Lakers, as much as I liked him coming in. The 3 is locked down with Ingram, and the 2 appears to be with either Russell or a coming-soon George. Using the #2 on a rotation player seems excessive; Lakers need a true PG. For the Lakers, that threesome might be Fultz/Ball/Fox, with Isaac as a darkhorse (more likely with a trade down IMO though).

While Ball would help the Lakers offensively, what would he do for their defense?

 

[flyerhawk]

That could very well happen. If they do end up with George, he won't play the 3 (which would block Ingram), so Russell is the odd man out at the 2. Randle can be unstoppable at times, but seems uninterested at D at times and hasn't developed that reliable jumper to round out his game yet.

Why would you move a guy who is a near super star at the 3 over to the 2 instead of a guy who is probably a better fit, at this point, at the 2? If the Lakers were to get George I would have to think that either the #2 pick and/or Russell would not longer be on the Lakers.

 

[shopson67]

Why would you move a guy who is a near super star at the 3 over to the 2 instead of a guy who is probably a better fit, at this point, at the 2? If the Lakers were to get George I would have to think that either the #2 pick and/or Russell would not longer be on the Lakers.

I'm talking George as a free agent next year. There is no reason to spend trade assets on a player that seems set to come for free.

George has played the 2 before and is listed as a SG/SF. Ultimately, it doesn't matter who's the 2 and who's the 3 as long as they can defend.

 

[flyerhawk]

I'm talking George as a free agent next year. There is no reason to spend trade assets on a player that seems set to come for free.

George has played the 2 before and is listed as a SG/SF. Ultimately, it doesn't matter who's the 2 and who's the 3 as long as they can defend.

Fair enough.

As a Sixers fan, I'm all for the Lakers waiting to get George until after next season.

 

[shopson67]

While Ball would help the Lakers offensively, what would he do for their defense?

While not a great defender yet, he's just a kid one year out of high school. He has the size and length to be a decent defender.

 

[shopson67]

Fair enough.

As a Sixers fan, I'm all for the Lakers waiting to get George until after next season.

After George's anti-clutch performance in the playoffs this year, I'm not that worried if the Lakers don't get him. With Russell's good play at the 2 down the stretch, I'd rather risk not getting George to see how a full year at the 2 for Russell plays out. George isn't necessarily a player you give up a bunch of young talent to build around IMO, especially after the injury. If he's your #1 star, you're going to need a #1a to get deep in the playoffs.

 

[Sparhawk]

While not a great defender yet, he's just a kid one year out of high school. He has the size and length to be a decent defender.

Agreed.
But, isn't the biggest need for the Lakers on the defensive end?

 

[trojanfan12]

Why would you move a guy who is a near super star at the 3 over to the 2 instead of a guy who is probably a better fit, at this point, at the 2? If the Lakers were to get George I would have to think that either the #2 pick and/or Russell would not longer be on the Lakers.

My guess is that if the Lakers get PG-13, Russell will be the odd man out. Magic has said that Ingram is the only guy he won't consider trading and I don't see Russell accepting a role backing up PG-13.

Plus, there have already been concerns about Russell's maturity and now he apparently tweeted something stupid about Lonzo Ball. I think the Lakers are done with his immaturity and will likely be looking to move him whether it nets them PG-13 or not.

 

[shopson67]

Agreed.
But, isn't the biggest need for the Lakers on the defensive end?

They can use #28 and free agency to work on that, #2 alone isn't going to fix it. PG isn't a strong defensive position in the NBA typically anyway. I think Fox' defense in college is being overstated as far as how it will carry over to the NBA.

 

[The Q]

They can use #28 and free agency to work on that, #2 alone isn't going to fix it. PG isn't a strong defensive position in the NBA typically anyway. I think Fox' defense in college is being overstated as far as how it will carry over to the NBA.

Get Bam at 28.

Problem solved.

 

[shopson67]

Get Bam at 28.

Problem solved.

I'm sure he would be considered if still on the board. Just having Zubac on the floor more will help at the rim as well.

 

[Mecca]

My guess is that if the Lakers get PG-13, Russell will be the odd man out. Magic has said that Ingram is the only guy he won't consider trading and I don't see Russell accepting a role backing up PG-13.

Plus, there have already been concerns about Russell's maturity and now he apparently tweeted something stupid about Lonzo Ball. I think the Lakers are done with his immaturity and will likely be looking to move him whether it nets them PG-13 or not.

Might want to keep this guy if he keeps working hard....