:::GAME (55) LAKERS vs CLIPPERS 7:30PM [4/4/12]:::

[Sofa King]

The Lakers had a chance to draft Ramon Sessions with their 2nd round pick, but didn't. Also, we've had plenty of draft picks that have not panned out recently. Better to make a move to improve than gamble on the draft especially with this Front Office.

[Tee212]

either way, when was the last time we had any promising picks besides ab? its difficult for any new rook to develop playing with this laker talented line up. They dont get enough pt, look how long it took for ab? 5-7 years now?

[Mirjalovic]

either way, when was the last time we had any promising picks besides ab? its difficult for any new rook to develop playing with this laker talented line up. They dont get enough pt, look how long it took for ab? 5-7 years now?

Javaris Crittenton. All Lakers fans sold on him when he was here.

[RamonSessions7]

either way, when was the last time we had any promising picks besides ab? its difficult for any new rook to develop playing with this laker talented line up. They dont get enough pt, look how long it took for ab? 5-7 years now?

Plus Bynum was a 10th pick, we were getting nowhere near that type of pick

[Sofa King]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRGH2UOc4XA[/youtube]

[Draper]

Have we had an even somewhat successful 1st round draft pick that wasn't Bynum or Kobe in the last 20 years?

Obviously we usually draft towards the end of the first round but since drafting Fisher in 1996 these have been our first round picks:

1998: Sam Jacobson
1999: Devean George
2000: Mark Madsen
2002: Chris Jefferies
2003: Brian Cook
2004: Sasha Sharapova
2005: Andrew Bynum
2006: Jordan Farmar
2007: Javaris Crittenton
2009: Toney Douglas

[DrewBynum77]

Imo we got the best possible option at the position without giving up any key pieces

we also dumped PUUUKE WALTON AND JASON CRAPONO HAHAHAHA

People wanted raymond fat-a-ton over him enough said.

[snaquille oatmeal]

ok I can respect that, but I am of the opinion that if you want to win you don't waste time waiting years for younger players to develop. that has always seem to me like Clippers/Toronto/Kings mentally. I think the Lakers have been pretty successful at staying in contention by adding new pieces as they become available rather than by drafting.

I don't really think that's a very good way of looking at things at all. You can have young players and still remain competitive, the Spurs are doing it right now. They gave up veteran presence for Leonard, took on a flyer in Green, and have the 2nd best record in the west. They even gave a chance to Gary Neal who probably wouldn't even be in the NBA if it weren't for the San Antonio Spurs.

Just because the Lakers aren't generally known for developing players doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Trading for players like Gasol isn't guaranteed.

so even though the lakers have won 5 tittles over the past 13 years versus 4 for the spurs (mind you they haven't won since 07) you don't think is not a very good way of going about building champion teams. look i get it that you prefer the way the spurs do things, but to completely dismiss the lakers way is asinine. it's like believing that a Ferrari is a piece of crap just because you are a fan German auto engineering. sorry jetty but you are wrong on this one.

[Jetset]

ok I can respect that, but I am of the opinion that if you want to win you don't waste time waiting years for younger players to develop. that has always seem to me like Clippers/Toronto/Kings mentally. I think the Lakers have been pretty successful at staying in contention by adding new pieces as they become available rather than by drafting.

I don't really think that's a very good way of looking at things at all. You can have young players and still remain competitive, the Spurs are doing it right now. They gave up veteran presence for Leonard, took on a flyer in Green, and have the 2nd best record in the west. They even gave a chance to Gary Neal who probably wouldn't even be in the NBA if it weren't for the San Antonio Spurs.

Just because the Lakers aren't generally known for developing players doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Trading for players like Gasol isn't guaranteed.

so even though the lakers have won 5 tittles over the past 13 years versus 4 for the spurs (mind you they haven't won since 07) you don't think is not a very good way of going about building champion teams. look i get it that you prefer the way the spurs do things, but to completely dismiss the lakers way is asinine. it's like believing that a Ferrari is a piece of crap just because you are a fan German auto engineering. sorry jetty but you are wrong on this one.

Where am I dismissing the Lakers way? Is the Lakers way to always trade for Gasol like players? Because if it is then yes I am dismissing it, that isn't guaranteed to happen again by any means. And yes, I do prefer the Spurs way of building, but I thought the message in that post was clear in that why can't the Lakers actually start building up young players? Why does it always have to be the Lakers relying on other teams to build talent and then swoop in and take them when they're close to their peaks? (I'm not showing any sympathy to a team that may happen to) but it doesn't always have to be that way. Oh but I guess "It's just the Laker way" is a good enough answer to tackle this question. Again we're arguing on preference just like with Sessions, what exactly is there to be wrong about? Why does everyone have to be wrong on this damn board?

[snaquille oatmeal]

Where am I dismissing the Lakers way? Is the Lakers way to always trade for Gasol like players? Because if it is then yes I am dismissing it, that isn't guaranteed to happen again by any means. And yes, I do prefer the Spurs way of building, but I thought the message in that post was clear in that why can't the Lakers actually start building up young players? Why does it always have to be the Lakers relying on other teams to build talent and then swoop in and take them when they're close to their peaks? (I'm not showing any sympathy to a team that may happen to) but it doesn't always have to be that way. Oh but I guess "It's just the Laker way" is a good enough answer to tackle this question. Again we're arguing on preference just like with Sessions, what exactly is there to be wrong about? Why does everyone have to be wrong on this damn board?

right there is the fundamental engineering difference I'm talking about. you ask why? the answer is because it works faster. your way relies on variables like getting lucky in the draft, and waiting years for these players to develop. can it work your way, yes the Spurs have shown that, but like I said they haven't won anything since 07. to be honest the Spurs have been contenders every year, but it is my opinion that that if they make a Gasol type trade they could won a tittle since 07.

on a personal preference level. I hate rookies, I hate college basketball, and I hate waiting for players to develop. I want my team to win now not 3 or 4 years down the road. so I really don't mind the Lakers way.

[Sofa King]

It helps that Lakers are in a big market. The reason why the Spurs and now the Thunder have to build in the draft is because they are in a small market.

I agree with Snaq on his points. Go for the best talents available. Kupchak has gone on record saying that's the Jerry West approach.

Miami scored big time with their big three and almost won it. The Celtics did the same and won one title.

In a perfect world, the Lakers would have the best rookies available, scouts, coaching system, starting players, role players, franchise, and rings each year.

[dockingsched]

driving home and on the radio they said that the lakers have asked the league to look into both griffin dunks and clarify why those weren't called fouls on griffin.

[Gek]

One was an over the back and the other was a forearm to the beak.

[snaquille oatmeal]

driving home and on the radio they said that the lakers have asked the league to look into both griffin dunks and clarify why those weren't called fouls on griffin.

doubt it will make any impact, but for basketball reasons I hope it does.

[Kilroy]

If they had called the over the back, they wouldn't have had to deal with the fore-arm... Griffin just got cocky...

Personally, I have no problem with the no calls, as long as it goes both ways.