Where do we stack up in the West?

[Tukkerwolf]

Lonzo can shoot and score though. He's like the Rubio that Wolves desperately wanted him to become.

Didnt he average something like 25% from 3 and 40-50% from 2? Numbers even Rubio would be ashamed of.

[jmoy]

I know the convo on the Lakers was started via Skip Bayless' asinine statements that the Lakers are a playoff team this year, but one thing that hasn't been brought up is that the Lakers rebuild has always been predicated on the fact that they CAN be a marquee FA destination. It was never their intent to have to grow organically through the draft like most teams, and bringing on Magic should be a big factor in bringing in one/many of Lebron, Paul George, Chris Paul, Russell Westbrook, etc.

A core of Ball, Ingram, Zubac, Randle, Clarkson, Kuzma, Hart (plus Lopez & KCP still??) isn't a title winner on its own, but add that core to their ability to bring in two max players next year, and then the convo immediately shifts.

That's what scares me.

They have been saying that for how long? From Lebron, to Carmelo, to Westbrook, to Love, to Durant, the best they could attract was Dwight Howard.

you can make the case that their poor showing before was the result of Jim and Jeannie's complete ineptness as owners. they were still getting meetings with the marquee FAs, which means there is at least some cache still to the Lakers name/brand; but they just weren't able to sell the FAs on the team like Jerry Buss was able to.
when it's now Magic Johnson making that pitch, I think it will resonate differently with players.

we'll see.

With this being an internet world now, being in LA isn't as big of a deal. With the money big name guys make NO MATTER where they play, again, LA is not a big deal. We always hear everyone wants to play in LA and NY, yet no one ever signs there. Why? Because players have learned, if you win and are good, it doesn't matter where you play, you get the money and attention. I think that is why players will follow Lebron to Cleveland or go to Golden State. They win and are in the finals. That is how you get paid, not playing for a sorry Lakers or Knicks team. BTW, this is the philosophy is Flip which is why he went for the home run in LaVine and wanted Wiggins. To have destination players on the Wolves.

[Oriole8159]

They have been saying that for how long? From Lebron, to Carmelo, to Westbrook, to Love, to Durant, the best they could attract was Dwight Howard.

you can make the case that their poor showing before was the result of Jim and Jeannie's complete ineptness as owners. they were still getting meetings with the marquee FAs, which means there is at least some cache still to the Lakers name/brand; but they just weren't able to sell the FAs on the team like Jerry Buss was able to.
when it's now Magic Johnson making that pitch, I think it will resonate differently with players.

we'll see.

With this being an internet world now, being in LA isn't as big of a deal. With the money big name guys make NO MATTER where they play, again, LA is not a big deal. We always hear everyone wants to play in LA and NY, yet no one ever signs there. Why? Because players have learned, if you win and are good, it doesn't matter where you play, you get the money and attention. I think that is why players will follow Lebron to Cleveland or go to Golden State. They win and are in the finals. That is how you get paid, not playing for a sorry Lakers or Knicks team. BTW, this is the philosophy is Flip which is why he went for the home run in LaVine and wanted Wiggins. To have destination players on the Wolves.

I do agree with that in theory, but I still think you're not addressing the fact that the Lakers and Knicks specifically were bad organizations for the longest time.
Teams don't want to play for bad organizations no matter where they're located. Jim and Jeannie were bad owners, and James Dolan is still a bad owner. They didn't surround themselves with good management and they have very bad reputations amongst the players, so that absolutely factors into why players haven't signed there as of recently.

That's why I brought up the fact though that they were still getting meetings though at least as proof that the players still see the possibility of the Lakers as synonymous with Showtime and luxury. Players don't take meetings with teams if they don't think they could see themselves signing there. Jim and Jeannie just sucked at giving the pitch, so that's why they ended up losing the player eventually.

They're just not their dad, and they never will be. That's why bringing in Magic to be the guy giving the pitch COULD make all the difference in the world.

You said so yourself that "if you win and are good, it doesn't matter where you play," and that actually helps my case I think because the Lakers already have the foundation to win and be very good, but are just lacking a star. Not many teams can offer up a slew of surrounding talent like they can on cost controlled contracts, just waiting for one star (or two) to really kick it into high gear and make them a contender. It's not even remotely close to the same pitch they were making even two years ago, and remember that the pitch is being given by Magic Johnson.

Throw that on top of playing for one of the premier sports franchises that is run by one of the premier sports icons, in a town that everyone would love to live in, a Hollywood atmosphere at every game, a plethora of nationally televised games, and no state income tax...and it's attractive.

I'm specifically not saying this about the Knicks as the Knicks still have the culture of a bad organization, but I think the Lakers are different now.
We'll see of course how this plays out next year, but I'm legit concerned.

[Calinks]

I dont think the allure of LA or New York is as bit as it once was. With that said I do think they still are a factor. At the end of the day though, what really matters is a teams potential. Lakers young guys are going to have to look very promising. I think that if they look like they are far away from being a good team, they will have trouble landing Paul George, I just find it hard to believe he at his prime would go to a team that is struggling to be in the playoffs. The Lakers will need promise and they will need to pull a wolves and make sure they have some marquee talent to lure other players. If Ball and Ingram look really good in the next year or two, they got a real shot to make it happen.

[KGdaBom]

you can make the case that their poor showing before was the result of Jim and Jeannie's complete ineptness as owners. they were still getting meetings with the marquee FAs, which means there is at least some cache still to the Lakers name/brand; but they just weren't able to sell the FAs on the team like Jerry Buss was able to.
when it's now Magic Johnson making that pitch, I think it will resonate differently with players.

we'll see.

With this being an internet world now, being in LA isn't as big of a deal. With the money big name guys make NO MATTER where they play, again, LA is not a big deal. We always hear everyone wants to play in LA and NY, yet no one ever signs there. Why? Because players have learned, if you win and are good, it doesn't matter where you play, you get the money and attention. I think that is why players will follow Lebron to Cleveland or go to Golden State. They win and are in the finals. That is how you get paid, not playing for a sorry Lakers or Knicks team. BTW, this is the philosophy is Flip which is why he went for the home run in LaVine and wanted Wiggins. To have destination players on the Wolves.

I do agree with that in theory, but I still think you're not addressing the fact that the Lakers and Knicks specifically were bad organizations for the longest time.
Teams don't want to play for bad organizations no matter where they're located. Jim and Jeannie were bad owners, and James Dolan is still a bad owner. They didn't surround themselves with good management and they have very bad reputations amongst the players, so that absolutely factors into why players haven't signed there as of recently.

That's why I brought up the fact though that they were still getting meetings though at least as proof that the players still see the possibility of the Lakers as synonymous with Showtime and luxury. Players don't take meetings with teams if they don't think they could see themselves signing there. Jim and Jeannie just sucked at giving the pitch, so that's why they ended up losing the player eventually.

They're just not their dad, and they never will be. That's why bringing in Magic to be the guy giving the pitch COULD make all the difference in the world.

You said so yourself that "if you win and are good, it doesn't matter where you play," and that actually helps my case I think because the Lakers already have the foundation to win and be very good, but are just lacking a star. Not many teams can offer up a slew of surrounding talent like they can on cost controlled contracts, just waiting for one star (or two) to really kick it into high gear and make them a contender. It's not even remotely close to the same pitch they were making even two years ago, and remember that the pitch is being given by Magic Johnson.

Throw that on top of playing for one of the premier sports franchises that is run by one of the premier sports icons, in a town that everyone would love to live in, a Hollywood atmosphere at every game, a plethora of nationally televised games, and no state income tax...and it's attractive.

I'm specifically not saying this about the Knicks as the Knicks still have the culture of a bad organization, but I think the Lakers are different now.
We'll see of course how this plays out next year, but I'm legit concerned.

California has huge state income taxes. Texas has none. I bet that is helping Houston a lot right now.

[Oriole8159]

With this being an internet world now, being in LA isn't as big of a deal. With the money big name guys make NO MATTER where they play, again, LA is not a big deal. We always hear everyone wants to play in LA and NY, yet no one ever signs there. Why? Because players have learned, if you win and are good, it doesn't matter where you play, you get the money and attention. I think that is why players will follow Lebron to Cleveland or go to Golden State. They win and are in the finals. That is how you get paid, not playing for a sorry Lakers or Knicks team. BTW, this is the philosophy is Flip which is why he went for the home run in LaVine and wanted Wiggins. To have destination players on the Wolves.

I do agree with that in theory, but I still think you're not addressing the fact that the Lakers and Knicks specifically were bad organizations for the longest time.
Teams don't want to play for bad organizations no matter where they're located. Jim and Jeannie were bad owners, and James Dolan is still a bad owner. They didn't surround themselves with good management and they have very bad reputations amongst the players, so that absolutely factors into why players haven't signed there as of recently.

That's why I brought up the fact though that they were still getting meetings though at least as proof that the players still see the possibility of the Lakers as synonymous with Showtime and luxury. Players don't take meetings with teams if they don't think they could see themselves signing there. Jim and Jeannie just sucked at giving the pitch, so that's why they ended up losing the player eventually.

They're just not their dad, and they never will be. That's why bringing in Magic to be the guy giving the pitch COULD make all the difference in the world.

You said so yourself that "if you win and are good, it doesn't matter where you play," and that actually helps my case I think because the Lakers already have the foundation to win and be very good, but are just lacking a star. Not many teams can offer up a slew of surrounding talent like they can on cost controlled contracts, just waiting for one star (or two) to really kick it into high gear and make them a contender. It's not even remotely close to the same pitch they were making even two years ago, and remember that the pitch is being given by Magic Johnson.

Throw that on top of playing for one of the premier sports franchises that is run by one of the premier sports icons, in a town that everyone would love to live in, a Hollywood atmosphere at every game, a plethora of nationally televised games, and no state income tax...and it's attractive.

I'm specifically not saying this about the Knicks as the Knicks still have the culture of a bad organization, but I think the Lakers are different now.
We'll see of course how this plays out next year, but I'm legit concerned.

California has huge state income taxes. Texas has none. I bet that is helping Houston a lot right now.

oh right, my bad on the CA taxes. Was thinking of FL that had that.
either way though, plenty of more valuable selling points that I had already listed.

[Oriole8159]

I dont think the allure of LA or New York is as bit as it once was. With that said I do think they still are a factor. At the end of the day though, what really matters is a teams potential. Lakers young guys are going to have to look very promising. I think that if they look like they are far away from being a good team, they will have trouble landing Paul George, I just find it hard to believe he at his prime would go to a team that is struggling to be in the playoffs. The Lakers will need promise and they will need to pull a wolves and make sure they have some marquee talent to lure other players. If Ball and Ingram look really good in the next year or two, they got a real shot to make it happen.

it's the NBA, where the quickest way to make a big time leap is by bringing in a star, or two. Don't forget that before Lebron came back, Cle was awful and had the #1 pick in the draft. Next year, they're in the finals. Now I know that's not fully comparable because Lebron had a unique connection to Cle (and Paul george isn't Lebron), but goes to show how much difference a star(s) can make in the NBA very quickly.

i disagree that the Lakers need to make substantial movements this year to be a player, since they should be able to paint the picture about how just adding someone like George can make everyone around him better and really make them a force to be reckoned with.

[Klomp]

i disagree that the Lakers need to make substantial movements this year to be a player, since they should be able to paint the picture about how just adding someone like George can make everyone around him better and really make them a force to be reckoned with.

I don't see this stacked lineup you do. To me, it's a lot like what we've been through the past decade. Even with George, I don't see them much better than the 40 wins Adelman/Love got us.

[KGdaBom]

I dont think the allure of LA or New York is as bit as it once was. With that said I do think they still are a factor. At the end of the day though, what really matters is a teams potential. Lakers young guys are going to have to look very promising. I think that if they look like they are far away from being a good team, they will have trouble landing Paul George, I just find it hard to believe he at his prime would go to a team that is struggling to be in the playoffs. The Lakers will need promise and they will need to pull a wolves and make sure they have some marquee talent to lure other players. If Ball and Ingram look really good in the next year or two, they got a real shot to make it happen.

it's the NBA, where the quickest way to make a big time leap is by bringing in a star, or two. Don't forget that before Lebron came back, Cle was awful and had the #1 pick in the draft. Next year, they're in the finals. Now I know that's not fully comparable because Lebron had a unique connection to Cle (and Paul george isn't Lebron), but goes to show how much difference a star(s) can make in the NBA very quickly.

i disagree that the Lakers need to make substantial movements this year to be a player, since they should be able to paint the picture about how just adding someone like George can make everyone around him better and really make them a force to be reckoned with.

I think George has to convince a buddy to join him in LA or neither will go there. Westbrook and George to LA would be the ticket. I don't want to see that happen though.

[Oriole8159]

I dont think the allure of LA or New York is as bit as it once was. With that said I do think they still are a factor. At the end of the day though, what really matters is a teams potential. Lakers young guys are going to have to look very promising. I think that if they look like they are far away from being a good team, they will have trouble landing Paul George, I just find it hard to believe he at his prime would go to a team that is struggling to be in the playoffs. The Lakers will need promise and they will need to pull a wolves and make sure they have some marquee talent to lure other players. If Ball and Ingram look really good in the next year or two, they got a real shot to make it happen.

it's the NBA, where the quickest way to make a big time leap is by bringing in a star, or two. Don't forget that before Lebron came back, Cle was awful and had the #1 pick in the draft. Next year, they're in the finals. Now I know that's not fully comparable because Lebron had a unique connection to Cle (and Paul george isn't Lebron), but goes to show how much difference a star(s) can make in the NBA very quickly.

i disagree that the Lakers need to make substantial movements this year to be a player, since they should be able to paint the picture about how just adding someone like George can make everyone around him better and really make them a force to be reckoned with.

I think George has to convince a buddy to join him in LA or neither will go there. Westbrook and George to LA would be the ticket. I don't want to see that happen though.

right that it prob will have to be two, but they did the D'angelo trade specifically to have the cap space for 2 max players so it's feasible at least on paper.

[ace625214]

Lonzo can shoot and score though. He's like the Rubio that Wolves desperately wanted him to become.

Didnt he average something like 25% from 3 and 40-50% from 2? Numbers even Rubio would be ashamed of.

He had one really rough shooting night that ruined his summer league percentages, but he shot 41.2% from 3 on over 5 attempts per game in college.

[KGdaBom]

Lonzo can shoot and score though. He's like the Rubio that Wolves desperately wanted him to become.

Didnt he average something like 25% from 3 and 40-50% from 2? Numbers even Rubio would be ashamed of.

He had one really rough shooting night that ruined his summer league percentages, but he shot 41.2% from 3 on over 5 attempts per game in college.

He has a really broken technique on his three and shoots it from very low. He can only get it off if he isn't guarded. He did as you stated have a nice percent on it.

[King Malta]

40 was if everything goes right. Last year many of us thought the Wolves could win 45 and look what happened. The Wolves SHOULD win close to 50. If things goes right for LA and they win 40, things would have to go very very wrong for the Wolves to win only 40. Therefore, saying the Lakers will be better than the Wolves is ridiculous.

I think only the super optimistic bunch though we could win 45, and the failure of the team to do that proves that that hope was far too high IMO.

For the Lakers to win 40 pretty much every player on their roster would need to have a career season and then some, no amount of things going right will lead to that happening.

Whether you think the Lakers can win 40 or not, with it being the best case scenario, do you think the Wolves will win less than 40? If not, my point stands.
Also, "I think only the super optimistic bunch though we could win 45" if by that you mean 1/3 of the people on this site that took this poll last year viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1485712 and over 3/4 thought they would win at least 40 games. Those were the optimistic predictions that even most "experts" made. It is very tough to guess how many games a team will win with young, talented, unproven players.

I'm saying it's not even the best case scenario, they simply won't win 40 games. If we're going to say completely unrealistic win totals for any particular roster are 'best case scenario' then I guess best case scenario for the Wolves is 82 wins right? I mean, if everything goes right in every game then you'd win 82 games I guess. I don't even understand the point you're making to be honest, what has the Wolves winning less than 40 got to do with you saying the Lakers could win 40? There's literally no correlation between those two points at all. The factors which can lead to a team being worse are way more likely than the other direction, as I already pointed out; for the Lakers to even get CLOSE to winning 40 games they'd need career seasons out of basically their entire roster and even then they still probably wouldn't, whereas if KAT and Jimmy had significant periods out next season the Wolves almost definitely don't win 40 games.

So what, 3/4 of people were clearly being unrealistic and were wrong, and all your follow up point does is prove that argument tbh. "It is very tough to guess how many games a team will win with young, talented, unproven players.", yeah, it is, and like last year with the Wolves you're making an assumption that a very young and raw team could win 40 games, it didn't happen last year and it won't happen this year under any circumstance.

[Takingbaconback]

Does anyone want to pitch in and buy the rockets? I'll start it off with 5 buckaroos.

[King Malta]

Does anyone want to pitch in and buy the rockets? I'll start it off with 5 buckaroos.

5 dollarydoos from me

[Tukkerwolf]

Lonzo can shoot and score though. He's like the Rubio that Wolves desperately wanted him to become.

Didnt he average something like 25% from 3 and 40-50% from 2? Numbers even Rubio would be ashamed of.

He had one really rough shooting night that ruined his summer league percentages, but he shot 41.2% from 3 on over 5 attempts per game in college.

One rough night?
1/11 vs LAC
1/5 vs BOS
3/10 vs PHI
2/10 vs CLE
1/3 Vs BKN
2/3 Vs DAL
10/42 Total

Ricky would shoot that blindfolded...

[Narf]

For those who don't know, you only pay income taxes on the 41 home games. The 41 road games you pay taxes on the state you play in. So effectively, you're paying 1/2 the sales taxes in California/Minnesota/etc. while paying 100% of other taxes in states like Texas with zero income taxes.

Every state collects taxes. If it isn't income tax it's sales/property/car taxes and lots of fees (license/tab fees, tolls, increased enforcement of minor infractions like speeding/parking tickets etc.). Every state collects revenue to run, but income tax is the only one you only pay half of.

An NBA player simply isn't saving much in total taxes paid in Texas vs Minnesota. Maybe a little, but that's probably not a motivating factor.

[Takingbaconback]

Didnt he average something like 25% from 3 and 40-50% from 2? Numbers even Rubio would be ashamed of.

He had one really rough shooting night that ruined his summer league percentages, but he shot 41.2% from 3 on over 5 attempts per game in college.

One rough night?
1/11 vs LAC
1/5 vs BOS
3/10 vs PHI
2/10 vs CLE
1/3 Vs BKN
2/3 Vs DAL
10/42 Total

Ricky would shoot that blindfolded...

Rubio shot 30% from 3 last season in his 6th NBA season. He couldn't shoot anything blindfolded including layups. Rubio also only took 196 3's. Lonzo took 1/5 of that in 6 games. You don't mind the misses at this point, you just want him to get more shots up to get better. Just his willingness to take those shots makes him a better shooter than Rubio because that shows a lot of confidence, which is by far the most important part of shooting.

[Tukkerwolf]

He had one really rough shooting night that ruined his summer league percentages, but he shot 41.2% from 3 on over 5 attempts per game in college.

One rough night?
1/11 vs LAC
1/5 vs BOS
3/10 vs PHI
2/10 vs CLE
1/3 Vs BKN
2/3 Vs DAL
10/42 Total

Ricky would shoot that blindfolded...

Rubio shot 30% from 3 last season in his 6th NBA season. He couldn't shoot anything blindfolded including layups. Rubio also only took 196 3's. Lonzo took 1/5 of that in 6 games. You don't mind the misses at this point, you just want him to get more shots up to get better. Just his willingness to take those shots makes him a better shooter than Rubio because that shows a lot of confidence, which is by far the most important part of shooting.

Ah ok. So a bad shooter missing 10 3s a game is a good thing and something Wolves fans wanted out of Rubio, I guess that's another way of spinning it. I prefer players that know their limitations. But we'll see how Ball will perform against NBA competition.

[minimus]

The only thing I care is playoff. We need to get there and make some noise.