What the bleep do we do with Julius Randle?

[Mecca]

But using this year as an example is still a flawed argument. You'd have to assume that every other team in the league stays with the same roster and injuries with only the Lakers improving.

Yep, I agree.

 

[bksballer89]

But using this year as an example is still a flawed argument. You'd have to assume that every other team in the league stays with the same roster and injuries with only the Lakers improving.

And also that a team like Utah who is also in front of the Lakers won't improve either

 

[trojanfan12]

I don't get the analogy.

But, ok...fair enough.

I think it's possible, not probable unless a few of the Teams ahead of them blow it up, have a catastrophic injury or the Lakers land a star.

Denver is #8 and all of their top guys are young, sans Milsap.

Murray, Beasley, Jokic, Harris, Lyles is a pretty good group of young talent.

Best bet to lap them is to add a star or hope they lose Barton, Chandler in free agency.

It assumes a natural progression that the Lakers youngsters will continue to improve and that it will happen at a greater rate than the youngsters of the teams ahead of them. It also assumes that they land solid FA's on a 1 year deal like they were able to do with Lopez and KCP.

The idea of the Lakers youngsters improving more this off-season than the youngsters on the teams ahead of them is feasible because the Lakers kids are younger.

Obviously, for the Lakers to make the playoffs next year if they don't land any max guys this year, will take some serious improvement and some things will have to break their way.

But to dismiss it out of hand like some seem to be doing is pretty silly and has more to do with the poster who posted it than the possibility of it happening, imo.

 

[trojanfan12]

Yeah if the Lakers don't land a star and lose IT (which is a lock), seems highly unlikely they're in the top 8 next year without a catastrophic injury to someone on one of those 9 teams ahead of them

I'm not so sure that losing IT is a lock. If they land a couple of max FA's, then yeah, I'd say it's a lock. If not, then I'm not sure it is.

I don't think IT is going to get the kinds of offers that he thinks he's going to get. He also seem to be fitting in pretty well with the Lakers. I have zero complaints about him. Even his defensive liability hasn't been too bad.

If the Lakers don't land any max FA's and IT doesn't get the kinds of offers he's looking for, I wouldn't be surprised to see him sign a 1 year deal with the Lakers to continue showing that his hip is okay to try to land a bigger, longer term deal in 2019.

 

[bksballer89]

I'm not so sure that losing IT is a lock. If they land a couple of max FA's, then yeah, I'd say it's a lock. If not, then I'm not sure it is.

You think the Lakers will be willing to give him close to 20 mil yearly on a shorter deal? He's been playing well since coming to the Lakers. Don't think he will get the max he is seeking but I do think he can find a team to give him 20 mil on a shorter contract.

 

[Mecca]

It assumes a natural progression that the Lakers youngsters will continue to improve and that it will happen at a greater rate than the youngsters of the teams ahead of them. It also assumes that they land solid FA's on a 1 year deal like they were able to do with Lopez and KCP.

The idea of the Lakers youngsters improving more this off-season than the youngsters on the teams ahead of them is feasible because the Lakers kids are younger.

Obviously, for the Lakers to make the playoffs next year if they don't land any max guys this year, will take some serious improvement and some things will have to break their way.

But to dismiss it out of hand like some seem to be doing is pretty silly and has more to do with the poster who posted it than the possibility of it happening, imo.

Agree.

Dismissing it outright is closed minded.

It is possible.

But, natural progression applies to a Team like Denver as well who have Jokic, Beasley, Murray Lyles still on their rookie deals.

At the start of the Season, Murray was 20, Harris 23, Jokic 22, Lyles 21 and Beasley 20.

They have plenty of room for growth too.

So, if both Teams stayed exactly the same, I don't see how you pass them barring injury.

 

[Mecca]

You think the Lakers will be willing to give him close to 20 mil yearly on a shorter deal? He's been playing well since coming to the Lakers. Don't think he will get the max he is seeking but I do think he can find a team to give him 20 mil on a shorter contract.

Yes, for 1 year like Pope and Redick.

Just a placeholder for 2019 cap space.

 

[Kold]

Ehh, coming in on the tail end of the convo here, but if we keep some semblance of the youngsters together with just others next year, it'll be tough, but I think we got a shot at the 8th seed next year. Even this year, if Lonzo doesn't get hurt, it's not out of the question that we'd be 3 or 4 games out

 

[Kold]

On a sidenote, I just wanna put an APB OUT on tge people that said Lonzo was a bust after a few games.
Oh and another one out for all the Brandon Ingram doubters

 

[DJ]

It assumes a natural progression that the Lakers youngsters will continue to improve and that it will happen at a greater rate than the youngsters of the teams ahead of them. It also assumes that they land solid FA's on a 1 year deal like they were able to do with Lopez and KCP.

The idea of the Lakers youngsters improving more this off-season than the youngsters on the teams ahead of them is feasible because the Lakers kids are younger.

Obviously, for the Lakers to make the playoffs next year if they don't land any max guys this year, will take some serious improvement and some things will have to break their way.

But to dismiss it out of hand like some seem to be doing is pretty silly and has more to do with the poster who posted it than the possibility of it happening, imo.

The usual suspects, the Laker haters.

SMH.

 

[trojanfan12]

You think the Lakers will be willing to give him close to 20 mil yearly on a shorter deal? He's been playing well since coming to the Lakers. Don't think he will get the max he is seeking but I do think he can find a team to give him 20 mil on a shorter contract.

I think they would on a 1 year deal. No reason not to. It'll be interesting for sure. Obviously how he finishes out the season will go a long way to determining what he'll be offered. I just don't know if there will be a big enough sample size for teams to offer him that much money on anything more than a 1-2 year deal.

It also depends on how much money he actually lost with the Cleveland debacle.

 

[trojanfan12]

Agree.

Dismissing it outright is closed minded.

It is possible.

But, natural progression applies to a Team like Denver as well who have Jokic, Beasley, Murray Lyles still on their rookie deals.

At the start of the Season, Murray was 20, Harris 23, Jokic 22, Lyles 21 and Beasley 20.

They have plenty of room for growth too.

So, if both Teams stayed exactly the same, I don't see how you pass them barring injury.

Agree. The problem though is that folks seem to think we're talking about just the Lakers kids. We also have to consider who the Lakers may get as veteran FA's if they don't land 2 max guys.

This won't happen, but look how they are playing now. If they were able to bring back Lopez, KCP and IT along with the natural progression of the kids, they are a playoff team, imo.

I don't see them being able to bring back those 3 specifically. But they may be able to bring in 3 comparable FA's.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

On a sidenote, I just wanna put an APB OUT on tge people that said Lonzo was a bust after a few games.
Oh and another one out for all the Brandon Ingram doubters

Bks probably said that. Sounds like something he'd say just because I'm a Lakers fan

 

[larryjohn]

I think they would on a 1 year deal. No reason not to. It'll be interesting for sure. Obviously how he finishes out the season will go a long way to determining what he'll be offered. I just don't know if there will be a big enough sample size for teams to offer him that much money on anything more than a 1-2 year deal.
It also depends on how much money he actually lost with the Cleveland debacle.

Why would IT sign a 1-2 year deal ? I think he signs a 4-year deal for the most he could get. (even if the per yield amount is lower than a 1-year deal) Someone will give him $50M-70M total for 4 years.

 

[bksballer89]

Bks probably said that. Sounds like something he'd say just because I'm a Lakers fan

Making shit up I see

 

[bksballer89]

Why would IT sign a 1-2 year deal ? I think he signs a 4-year deal for the most he could get. (even if the per yield amount is lower than a 1-year deal) Someone will give him $50M-70M total for 4 years.

If he can't find a team willing to give him a long term deal

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Making shit up I see

You telling me that you don't dislike the Lakers partly because of me?

'Rent free'

 

[bksballer89]

You telling me that you don't dislike the Lakers partly because of me?

'Rent free'

Lol i don't dislike the lakers. Don't like some of their posters on SportsHoopla but as for the actual team? Don't like or dislike them.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Lol i don't dislike the lakers. Don't like some of their posters on SportsHoopla but as for the actual team? Don't like or dislike them.

 

[tlance]

Agree. The problem though is that folks seem to think we're talking about just the Lakers kids. We also have to consider who the Lakers may get as veteran FA's if they don't land 2 max guys.

This won't happen, but look how they are playing now. If they were able to bring back Lopez, KCP and IT along with the natural progression of the kids, they are a playoff team, imo.

I don't see them being able to bring back those 3 specifically. But they may be able to bring in 3 comparable FA's.

Would you really want them to bring those 3 back? It surely would not be on 1 year deals.