lake_show wrote:dockingsched wrote:the way you mention Clarkson makes it seem you think he's worse than Randle. Randle, ignoring his potential and likelihood to improve, was pretty damn terrible at everything last year except rebounding. He has a ways to go to even get to the Lavine / Clarkson level, not that he can't.lake_show wrote:I'm a huge fan of Lavine... but he's not a better all around player than Randle. Heck, I'm not even sure he's better than Clarkson. Clarkson can play either the 1 or the 2. I love Lavine's game but his issue is he's not really a 1 or a 2. He's somewhere in between. Not sure how that will play out long term.
And, as for him being better than both... I mean, c'mon Lol
I honestly think Randle is the best player out of those 3. And... Personally, I think it makes absolutely no sense to rate a player while "ignoring his potential and likelihood to improve". When people do that they're essentially talking about a completley different/hypothetical player, and using that made up player for the sake of making a point.
All these guys are who they are, and at this point, even though he's not my favorite player of the three, he's definitely the better player. At least, I personally see it that way.
How does it make no sense to ignore potential if you're talking about who is currently the better player? Perhaps you are trying to discuss the more valuable player, but if it's just about the better player right now then yes you should ignore potential.
And we'll just have to agree to disagree on where Randle stands as a player right now compared to Clarkson and Lavine, cause although the two latter aren't currently anything special, Randle to me was terrible at everything except rebounding last year.
+ 
= 