Do you prefer Lakers force a move now or wait for TD?

[TylersLakers]

LaVine is a good player and would fit will - the problem is the Lakers don’t have any bloated contracts to take back his salary so they’re stacking rotation players to get it done. I wouldn’t do that.

Now if we still had Westbrook and his 47 million on the books? Yeah, perfect. But they need to add to the team.

[DanishLakerFan]

I believe in chemistry. I believe that any basketball team can prosper when the pieces on that team fit well together. I also believe that mostly all NBA players are talented enough to contribute in the right role. For example, I used to say with great frequency that Lou Williams could've easily been a franchise scorer averaging 30 points a game if Williams had been lucky enough to play alongside a tall, defensive PG like Shaun Livingston to relieve him of point guard duties and having to guard two-guards.

Most people laughed in my face at the idea of Williams, a career 6th man, starting and averaging 30 a game as the franchise player. My thoughts were preposterous to most, but to me, it was clear as day. Lou Williams, in his prime, was a stone scorer who would score nearly 20 points a game in only 24 minutes. Was he a winning basketball player? Probably not, no, but the same can be said of one Kyrie Irving.

Before James came back to Cleveland, Irving was a loser. Those Cleveland teams before James commandeered the offense, were terrible with Irving running point, but Irving's game, his redeemable qualities, were palatable. If you could see them, you could see that, if nothing else, Irving could score, and pairing him next to a super-efficient and athletic point-forward who could relieve Irving of his decision-making/facilitating responsibilities was a match made in heaven.

Simply put, Irving next to James, like Mo Williams before him, had great potential to have great chemistry. In a vacuum, you could say Irving was a loser and an empty stats player, but in the right role, paired with the right guys around him, he had the potential to hit legendary shots down the stretch of big games. In a vacuum, Lou Williams was just a sixth man. He couldn't average thirty and lead his team to the playoffs no matter who he plays with, but in right role, surrounded by the right players, I adamantly believe he could've. We'll never know though.

Devin Booker is another one. He couldn't win a game to save his life before he played alongside his perfect compliment (Chris Paul).

Before Paul, Booker was maligned as just a scorer, and similar to Irving, almost overnight when paired with the right players around him, he instantly became a "winner".

I have no doubt that Beal, Ingram, LaVine, Simons, and to a lesser degree Herro or Clarkson would fill a huge void for this team as scorers/shooters and athletic upgrades to Russell and Reaves. On many other teams, all of these aforementioned guys might be best served as off the bench, scoring sixth men, but for this team they'd be tasked with the responsibility of averaging 24 a game, shooting 38% from deep, and playing passable defense. They'd be tasked with playing the "Irving-role", the guy next to James who is athletically and mentally capable of hitting big shots down the stretch of games when James clams up and can't.

These players could never be "answers" to you, but to me that's because you're simply not asking the proper questions.

I agree with regards to chemistry and many players put in the right roles can flouish. But having a guy that gets you 30 doesn't matter if he allow 30 on the other end, which is the story for most of the guys you suggest. In addition their contracts are expensive and very difficult to trade for w/o giving up too much.

Generelly it might take close to a decade to get two players on Lebron and AD's level through drafting/signing etc., so the best course of action is to go with what we have right now, and make sure it's possible to re-tool in 2026.

To save your life, who do you want guarding Jamal Murray on an island?

Russell/Reaves or LaVine?
Russell/Reaves or Beal?
Russell/Reaves or Ingram?
Russell/Reaves or Simons?

None of the guys I mentioned are stoppers. They're simply more physically capable defenders.

I'm banking on these guys reading the room, knowing they're in a good situation to thrive, understanding they're playing with two champions with eyes on postseason success, and dedicating themselves to defense.

They all have the ability. They've just never played high stakes basketball with LeBron James. Oftentimes that's enough motivation.

And giving up Russell, Hachimura, Vanderbilt, and/or Vincent is not giving up "too much".

If the only goal was to stop Jamal Murray, i'd probably go with BI first. Play off him a little bit and make him shoot contested jumpers (which he might hit, if he's healthy). After that its a wash. LaVine might be ok at staying in front of him, but 10 seconds later he'll allow Murray to shoot a wide open 3 from the corner. Statistically, Reaves isn't worse defensively than any of those guys.

Now if the goal is to stop Denver, which it is, i think i would focus on that big guy they have. Generally they're a bad matchup, although losing KCP is gonna hurt them a lot. Find a back-up C that allow AD to guard Joker on the perimeter without giving up the paint. I would also add a defensive wing that doesn't hurt us too much offensively.

[Anderson Hunt]

I agree with regards to chemistry and many players put in the right roles can flouish. But having a guy that gets you 30 doesn't matter if he allow 30 on the other end, which is the story for most of the guys you suggest. In addition their contracts are expensive and very difficult to trade for w/o giving up too much.

Generelly it might take close to a decade to get two players on Lebron and AD's level through drafting/signing etc., so the best course of action is to go with what we have right now, and make sure it's possible to re-tool in 2026.

To save your life, who do you want guarding Jamal Murray on an island?

Russell/Reaves or LaVine?
Russell/Reaves or Beal?
Russell/Reaves or Ingram?
Russell/Reaves or Simons?

None of the guys I mentioned are stoppers. They're simply more physically capable defenders.

I'm banking on these guys reading the room, knowing they're in a good situation to thrive, understanding they're playing with two champions with eyes on postseason success, and dedicating themselves to defense.

They all have the ability. They've just never played high stakes basketball with LeBron James. Oftentimes that's enough motivation.

And giving up Russell, Hachimura, Vanderbilt, and/or Vincent is not giving up "too much".

If the only goal was to stop Jamal Murray, i'd probably go with BI first. Play off him a little bit and make him shoot contested jumpers (which he might hit, if he's healthy). After that its a wash. LaVine might be ok at staying in front of him, but 10 seconds later he'll allow Murray to shoot a wide open 3 from the corner. Statistically, Reaves isn't worse defensively than any of those guys.

Now if the goal is to stop Denver, which it is, i think i would focus on that big guy they have. Generally they're a bad matchup, although losing KCP is gonna hurt them a lot. Find a back-up C that allow AD to guard Joker on the perimeter without giving up the paint. I would also add a defensive wing that doesn't hurt us too much offensively.

For all intent and purposes, yes, that is the prototypical goal. Jokic isn't being stopped. He'll get his against anyone, but if Murray isn't salivating at the idea of being checked by Russell or Reaves and he doesn't go ballistic for two straight years, the Lakers beat Denver.

Murray knows neither one of Russell/Reaves can guard him, so he's empowered by that fact the same way Paul Pierce and Ray Allen were empowered by the thought of being checked by Sasha Vujacic and Luke Walton in the Finals, or the same way Rasheed Wallace went of on Slava Medvedenko in the Finals against the Pistons. These guys went off on the Lakers because Walton and Vucajcic and Medvedenko had no chance as primary defenders against Murray, Pierce, Allen, and Wallace. Walton and Vucajcic and Medvedenko simply weren't physically capable of offering any resistance in high-stakes, meaningful postseason basketball games.

Russell and Reaves are physically inept as primary defenders against athletic guards. I believe they want to be good defenders, but they can't. They try, but they're too slow. Both of them weren't made to guard speedy, shifty guards like Murray. They're made to guard guys like Pope, but not talented, athletic guys who can get hot and go nuclear.

The Lakers simply need an upgrade in athleticism and speed in the backcourt. They need a guy who doesn't make Murray and other speedy guards like him excited to square up against him.

Beal, LaVine, Ingram, and Simons are upgrades over Russell and Reaves. Not only will these guys make Murray expend energy on defense, they'll also offer more resistance against his streaky antics, and that is the goal, no question.

[DanishLakerFan]

To save your life, who do you want guarding Jamal Murray on an island?

Russell/Reaves or LaVine?
Russell/Reaves or Beal?
Russell/Reaves or Ingram?
Russell/Reaves or Simons?

None of the guys I mentioned are stoppers. They're simply more physically capable defenders.

I'm banking on these guys reading the room, knowing they're in a good situation to thrive, understanding they're playing with two champions with eyes on postseason success, and dedicating themselves to defense.

They all have the ability. They've just never played high stakes basketball with LeBron James. Oftentimes that's enough motivation.

And giving up Russell, Hachimura, Vanderbilt, and/or Vincent is not giving up "too much".

If the only goal was to stop Jamal Murray, i'd probably go with BI first. Play off him a little bit and make him shoot contested jumpers (which he might hit, if he's healthy). After that its a wash. LaVine might be ok at staying in front of him, but 10 seconds later he'll allow Murray to shoot a wide open 3 from the corner. Statistically, Reaves isn't worse defensively than any of those guys.

Now if the goal is to stop Denver, which it is, i think i would focus on that big guy they have. Generally they're a bad matchup, although losing KCP is gonna hurt them a lot. Find a back-up C that allow AD to guard Joker on the perimeter without giving up the paint. I would also add a defensive wing that doesn't hurt us too much offensively.

For all intent and purposes, yes, that is the prototypical goal. Jokic isn't being stopped. He'll get his against anyone, but if Murray isn't salivating at the idea of being checked by Russell or Reaves and he doesn't go ballistic for two straight years, the Lakers beat Denver.

Murray knows neither one of Russell/Reaves can guard him, so he's empowered by that fact the same way Paul Pierce and Ray Allen were empowered by the thought of being checked by Sasha Vujacic and Luke Walton in the Finals, or the same way Rasheed Wallace went of on Slava Medvedenko in the Finals against the Pistons. These guys went off on the Lakers because Walton and Vucajcic and Medvedenko had no chance as primary defenders against Murray, Pierce, Allen, and Wallace. Walton and Vucajcic and Medvedenko simply weren't physically capable of offering any resistance in high-stakes, meaningful postseason basketball games.

Russell and Reaves are physically inept as primary defenders against athletic guards. I believe they want to be good defenders, but they can't. They try, but they're too slow. Both of them weren't made to guard speedy, shifty guards like Murray. They're made to guard guys like Pope, but not talented, athletic guys who can get hot and go nuclear.

The Lakers simply need an upgrade in athleticism and speed in the backcourt. They need a guy who doesn't make Murray and other speedy guards like him excited to square up against him.

Beal, LaVine, Ingram, and Simons are upgrades over Russell and Reaves. Not only will these guys make Murray expend energy on defense, they'll also offer more resistance against his streaky antics, and that is the goal, no question.

I agree the Lakers could use an upgrade in athleticism, but you need a more hollistic approach to team building, than just looking at the potential Murray-matchup and gut your roster to adresss that. And Murray wasn't exactly dropping 40 in that series either.

But i get your point in terms of the type of player to target, i just strongly disagree with the candidates you've presented. The overall defensive metrics of these guys are horrible and often worse than D'Lo. They are also way too expensive and while they may be better at the point of attack defense, their overall impact is still horrible.

[Anderson Hunt]

If the only goal was to stop Jamal Murray, i'd probably go with BI first. Play off him a little bit and make him shoot contested jumpers (which he might hit, if he's healthy). After that its a wash. LaVine might be ok at staying in front of him, but 10 seconds later he'll allow Murray to shoot a wide open 3 from the corner. Statistically, Reaves isn't worse defensively than any of those guys.

Now if the goal is to stop Denver, which it is, i think i would focus on that big guy they have. Generally they're a bad matchup, although losing KCP is gonna hurt them a lot. Find a back-up C that allow AD to guard Joker on the perimeter without giving up the paint. I would also add a defensive wing that doesn't hurt us too much offensively.

For all intent and purposes, yes, that is the prototypical goal. Jokic isn't being stopped. He'll get his against anyone, but if Murray isn't salivating at the idea of being checked by Russell or Reaves and he doesn't go ballistic for two straight years, the Lakers beat Denver.

Murray knows neither one of Russell/Reaves can guard him, so he's empowered by that fact the same way Paul Pierce and Ray Allen were empowered by the thought of being checked by Sasha Vujacic and Luke Walton in the Finals, or the same way Rasheed Wallace went of on Slava Medvedenko in the Finals against the Pistons. These guys went off on the Lakers because Walton and Vucajcic and Medvedenko had no chance as primary defenders against Murray, Pierce, Allen, and Wallace. Walton and Vucajcic and Medvedenko simply weren't physically capable of offering any resistance in high-stakes, meaningful postseason basketball games.

Russell and Reaves are physically inept as primary defenders against athletic guards. I believe they want to be good defenders, but they can't. They try, but they're too slow. Both of them weren't made to guard speedy, shifty guards like Murray. They're made to guard guys like Pope, but not talented, athletic guys who can get hot and go nuclear.

The Lakers simply need an upgrade in athleticism and speed in the backcourt. They need a guy who doesn't make Murray and other speedy guards like him excited to square up against him.

Beal, LaVine, Ingram, and Simons are upgrades over Russell and Reaves. Not only will these guys make Murray expend energy on defense, they'll also offer more resistance against his streaky antics, and that is the goal, no question.

I agree the Lakers could use an upgrade in athleticism, but you need a more hollistic approach to team building, than just looking at the potential Murray-matchup and gut your roster to adresss that. And Murray wasn't exactly dropping 40 in that series either.

But i get your point in terms of the type of player to target, i just strongly disagree with the candidates you've presented. The overall defensive metrics of these guys are horrible and often worse than D'Lo. They are also way too expensive and while they may be better at the point of attack defense, their overall impact is still horrible.

How is trading Russell, Hachimura, and Vanderbilt "gutting the roster"?

- Beal or LaVine replaces Russell's output.
- Gordon Hayward off the scrap heap replaces Hachimura's output.
- And Reddish replaces Vanderbilt's output.

The argument that the Lakers shouldn't sacrifice depth for another All-star is a silly argument when many of the players on the roster are easily replaceable (by guys on the minimum).

You're absolutely reaching and grasping for straws with your "holistic" angle. I know what you're trying to say, but it misses the mark, because there is nothing missing from the roster I've constructed. It's 100% wholistic.

You're intimating that because I point out a need and fill the need that somehow I'm ignoring and creating other needs, and that's simply not true. It's a lazy response.

As far as your point about Beal and LaVine being as bad as Russell on defense, you're only looking at numbers. There is no way any knowledgeable purveyor of NBA basketball would pick Russell over LaVine or Beal to guard Murray, Morant, or Edwards in the playoffs.

Russell (and Reaves) have too many physical limitations. As I've stated before, the mere presence of Russell and Reaves empowers Murray. He is emboldened by them.

I love stats as much as the next man, but they're useless without context. Basketball wisdom, vision, and intuition come first. With that in place, you use the numbers to affirm or oppose what you see and sense.

You seem to be denying what you see or have seen.

Reaves and Russell can only grow defensively by getting stronger, that means they'll be better equipped to guard average NBA two-guards, but they will always have a huge problem with foot speed. There is no improving that. Numbers, in isolation, won't tell you that. You need context, vision, and instincts to make these determinations.

Beal and LaVine have the tools. They just need the tutelage and the culture. Contextually, they just need to be around winning for their defensive metrics to surpass Russell's current paltry numbers.

Your point about them being too expensive is valid. That's undeniable. I just believe and have faith that a dynamic, wholistic, functional team can be built around that horrible contract:

PG - James - Reddish - Schifino
SG - Christie - James - Craig
C --- Davis - Williams III - Biyombo
PF - Hayward - Knecht - Wood
SF - LaVine - Reaves - Lewis

Note: Yes, I have Reddish and Baby James in the second unit. Baby James will only see spot minutes as a defender against speedy guards, but I actually want to give the ball to Reddish.

Reddish will play because of his defense, but I want to empower him as a "one for one" backup to LeBron James. That means when James sits, Reddish is in. On offense, he'll be the third option in the second unit, but he'll have the ball a lot as lead facilitator when James sits. Other, more than qualified, guys like Reaves, LaVine, and Hayward will serve as support.

If Reddish is playing defense, I believe in him. If he consistently earns his minutes with defensive dedication, I have no problem unlocking him on offense by letting him initiate offense as the backup PG. I believe the Lakers will need Reddish, that if they keep him engaged he can win them an important playoff game. He has that type of game-breaking ability. I think he can handle the job as offensive backup point guard/defensive PF just fine, but if he can't Schifino can and will take his spot. Reddish and Schifino will push each other here.

Reddish is by no means a natural point guard, but he doesn't have to be. Under my parameters, the absolute worst ballhandling lineup from the nine-man rotation that could possibly (but not probably) see the floor is:

PG - Reddish
SG - Christie
C --- Williams
PF - Knecht
SF - LaVine

As a worst case scenario, rarely, if ever seen, with James, Hayward, and Reaves sitting, I'm cool with it. With Vanderbilt gone, they'll need Reddish, so it's best to give him a defined, challenging role and empower him. Give him the ball and allow him to embrace his role as an understudy to Papa James.

[DanishLakerFan]

This is next-level trolling.

[LakersSoul]

Is it me or do you guys also believe Knecht is going to absolutely feast with open 3s next to Bron/AD.

AR
Max
Knecht
Bron
AD

[stan francisco]

I think we will contend this year even if we wait making moves until the TD. Trade Russell’s expiring at that point.

We have a coach this year, not just a player-buddy. He’s new, but he’s got a brass pair and a vision. It’ll be fun to see what this roster can do with an actual system.

I’d trade for Ingram in a heartbeat. LaVine? Never. Beal? No. Defense first.

Pelinka did a great job last year. Looking forward to us fans reaping the benefits of that this season. And Reddick will, too.

If he can make Hayes and/or Wood play solid defense, we’re in good shape. If he has the balls to rely on his offensive system instead of D Lo’s freewheeling, we might not be a defensive sieve this season.

[LakersSoul]

I think we will contend this year even if we wait making moves until the TD. Trade Russell’s expiring at that point.

We have a coach this year, not just a player-buddy. He’s new, but he’s got a brass pair and a vision. It’ll be fun to see what this roster can do with an actual system.

I’d trade for Ingram in a heartbeat. LaVine? Never. Beal? No. Defense first.

Pelinka did a great job last year. Looking forward to us fans reaping the benefits of that this season. And Reddick will, too.

If he can make Hayes and/or Wood play solid defense, we’re in good shape. If he has the balls to rely on his offensive system instead of D Lo’s freewheeling, we might not be a defensive sieve this season.

If we can get Ingram for 1FRP plus a SRP, I would love to add him. At $36m then FA, Not worth 2 FRPs.

[stan francisco]

I think we will contend this year even if we wait making moves until the TD. Trade Russell’s expiring at that point.

We have a coach this year, not just a player-buddy. He’s new, but he’s got a brass pair and a vision. It’ll be fun to see what this roster can do with an actual system.

I’d trade for Ingram in a heartbeat. LaVine? Never. Beal? No. Defense first.

Pelinka did a great job last year. Looking forward to us fans reaping the benefits of that this season. And Reddick will, too.

If he can make Hayes and/or Wood play solid defense, we’re in good shape. If he has the balls to rely on his offensive system instead of D Lo’s freewheeling, we might not be a defensive sieve this season.

If we can get Ingram for 1FRP plus a SRP, I would love to add him. At $36m then FA, Not worth 2 FRPs.

I don’t see why they would trade him.

[LakersSoul]

I think we will contend this year even if we wait making moves until the TD. Trade Russell’s expiring at that point.

We have a coach this year, not just a player-buddy. He’s new, but he’s got a brass pair and a vision. It’ll be fun to see what this roster can do with an actual system.

I’d trade for Ingram in a heartbeat. LaVine? Never. Beal? No. Defense first.

Pelinka did a great job last year. Looking forward to us fans reaping the benefits of that this season. And Reddick will, too.

If he can make Hayes and/or Wood play solid defense, we’re in good shape. If he has the balls to rely on his offensive system instead of D Lo’s freewheeling, we might not be a defensive sieve this season.

If we can get Ingram for 1FRP plus a SRP, I would love to add him. At $36m then FA, Not worth 2 FRPs.

I don’t see why they would trade him.

Not sure if NO wants to give 45-50million to Ingram as their cornerstone.

[Dr Aki]

Prices are always cheaper at the trade deadline.

As Bob Myers said, you have 29 other GMs wanting to prove how smart and effective they are during the summer.

[AmusingFiddle]

Do you prefer Lakers force a move now (pre-season) or wait for Trade Deadline?

Personally, I like the roster continuity, adding a better supportive staff with JJ (over Ham), and seeing how we look with healthy squad of Gabe, Vando, and adding Knecht4 into the rotation with JJ’s new plays and formation. Then at trading deadline make a few moves including adding a bruising center or not at better value.

Believe Dlo will be the expiring to work around and possibly Cam Johnson and Portland’s JGrant will become a worse contract to be had for no or 1 FRP max.

I prefer to stand pat until TD; unless a no-brainer move falls in our lap. i.e. a starter becomes available at a reasonable price or we can shed salary w/o hurting our rotation.

[balrog27]

It all depends on who's available and the cost.

If the cost for Jerami Grant is Rui and 2 1sts - I don't do that deal now, December, January 2 years ago, etc. That's an absolutely ridiculous ask considering what Portland paid to get him.

If the cost for Dorian Finney Smith is a (lightly protected) 1st round pick plus Vincent and JHS - I'd do that right now.
If the cost for Cam Johnson is a (protected) 1st round pick and Rui, JHS, Reddish - I'd do that right now.
If the cost for Wendell Carter is an unprotected 1st and Gabe Vincent - I'd do that right now.

Outside of those guys - all the other targets are off the board that I wanted to begin the off-season. Murray, Caruso, Lauri, DeMar, etc.

Who's going to be available at the deadline? Is there a star that's somewhat frustrated where a bad start would only boil that over? I can't think of anyone. I wouldn't give up the draft capital required to get Karl Towns or Gobert from Minnesota. I significantly doubt Steph becomes available. I can't think of anyone else.

The problem with our pick situation is teams think we're desperate and when they think that, they're going to want both picks almost regardless of who the player is. I think if we would have made a move earlier to deal one of those picks, we'd be able to get someone like Grant, DFS, Cam, etc with only 1 pick. But because we have both, the league is going to want both no matter how ridiculous that sounds.

If you want to make a serious run, Tyler, you go after LaVine (Beal). This team doesn't just need role-players. This team needs an All-Star level guy. As dan has said many times, if James and Davis were as good as advertised, the team wouldn't stink.

The truth is that they're both overrated.

Davis has never been a franchise player. He doesn't have the mind state. He's an elite-level talent, but he's not a dynamic scorer.

James cannot lead a winning team in scoring anymore. He can't carry a team anymore.

Both Davis and James are elite ancillary pieces, so acquiring Cam Johnson and/or DFS won't move the needle. They need a guy who can takeover games, a guy capable of dropping 50bon any given night while not being a complete defensive sieve.

The Lakers need a guy like Simons, Beal, LaVine, Herro, Ball, or Ingram.

Anything else and they're really not that serious about catching Boston.

I was kinda following this until you said simons, beal lavine, herro. You would want Tyler herro taking the game winner instead of bron or AD???

[danfantastk32]

Not sure if NO wants to give 45-50million to Ingram as their cornerstone.

They don't. Nobody does. Ingram is in for a rude-awakening. This new 2nd-tier means teams have to stay under unless something undeniably amazing falls into their lap. So your gonna see alot of 2nd-tier "stars" stop getting max contracts moving forward.

Ingram is a nice 3rd option on a good team. And you can't pay $50 mil for your 3rd option.