A Jumpshooting Center

[PKABOOICU]

If LMAs big ass was willing to play Center, he would have been nice too but since that didnt happen, the next 'jump-shooting' center that realistically suits the Lakers is Al Horford.
I like Cousinsfrom a talent and passion perspective but hes not a winner.

I think the Lakers would be wise to offer Horford a 4 year deal around the 15 million range. He would be 33 by the time his contract ends. He's a sound player. I would also try to sign and trade for Serge Ibaka. I dont know how though...maybe deal away Hibbert's expiring if OKC decides to blow it up.

[miggs]

If LMAs big ass was willing to play Center, he would have been nice too but since that didnt happen, the next 'jump-shooting' center that realistically suits the Lakers is Al Horford.
I like Cousinsfrom a talent and passion perspective but hes not a winner.

I think the Lakers would be wise to offer Horford a 4 year deal around the 15 million range. He would be 33 by the time his contract ends. He's a sound player. I would also try to sign and trade for Serge Ibaka. I dont know how though...maybe deal away Hibbert's expiring if OKC decides to blow it up.

Don't see Horford taking such a lowly offer but man if he did it'd mean we likely brought two max plyrs along with Horford as the 3rd.

[Laker_Kid]

Hibbert says Hi


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[miggs]

... Dial tone...

[ALL HAIL]

Jump shooting centers are lame anyway. Give me a dominant prime Shaq today and GSW have to do a complete roster make-over starting with a big man. It's a big man's game, it's a strong man's game. Give me Tarik Black over Kelly at C, Bass over Kelly at PF/C, Nancy over Kelly at SF/PF, A Brown over Kelly at SF. He's already third string, now add a star SF and a star C. Trade Kelly and his imaginary expertise 3pt shooting for a defensive wing, a pick, sweaty towels. Please.

I agree.

Shaq ain't here though -- Julius Randle is. And he's PLENTY strong.

Shaq needed Horry as a floor spreader, and Julius Randle needs the same.

Do you remember when the Lakers were trying to play Shaq and Elden Campbell together?

It kinda reminds me of how Randle and Whiteside'll look together.

I do feel you though. Trust me, I'm an old-school dude. I want a league where physicality and low post play never go out of fashion ... but that ain't the argument.

The argument here is surrounding the existing players with role players who, I believe, will make them better.

Horry, believe it or not, made Shaq (even) better.

A guy "like" Spencer Hawes, defensive weaknesses and all, I believe, would open up the floor and make Randle a much better player.

[ALL HAIL]

Have Kelly and Randle even played together at 5 and 4 all year? I know they've played together at 4 and 3.

kelly only played in 33 or something games this season (zero starts) and his minutes were all over the place... one night it's 20 minutes few games off then a game where he plays 2 minutes... he only averaged one 3 pt attempt per game so if you want to bag on him feel free but you're kind of chasing nonsense.

You can't take away anything of substance from this season but if you're going to use stats to take away then you have to give too...using per 100 possessions look at stats then you'll find he's a better defender than Randle and Black, 3rd best rebounder, leads all the big men in steals, had a better FG% than Kobe, Young and Metta and turned the ball over less than all the starters and main bench crew...

like I said using stats on him this season is nonsense

btw his first two seasons he shot 34% from behind the arc but he played more consistent minutes

I'm not the biggest Kelly fan but for the price it's worth giving him real chance to show what he has...

I'm in 100% agreement here. Stats do, in fact, lie sometimes. CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.

We're obviously on the same side of this argument.

I was merely asking the question so someone else (not me -- too lazy) could actually do the research on how many times we actually saw a Kelly/Randle front line at center and PF.

[gts1]

Have Kelly and Randle even played together at 5 and 4 all year? I know they've played together at 4 and 3.

kelly only played in 33 or something games this season (zero starts) and his minutes were all over the place... one night it's 20 minutes few games off then a game where he plays 2 minutes... he only averaged one 3 pt attempt per game so if you want to bag on him feel free but you're kind of chasing nonsense.

You can't take away anything of substance from this season but if you're going to use stats to take away then you have to give too...using per 100 possessions look at stats then you'll find he's a better defender than Randle and Black, 3rd best rebounder, leads all the big men in steals, had a better FG% than Kobe, Young and Metta and turned the ball over less than all the starters and main bench crew...

like I said using stats on him this season is nonsense

btw his first two seasons he shot 34% from behind the arc but he played more consistent minutes

I'm not the biggest Kelly fan but for the price it's worth giving him real chance to show what he has...

I'm in 100% agreement here. Stats do, in fact, lie sometimes. CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.

We're obviously on the same side of this argument.

I was merely asking the question so someone else (not me -- too lazy) could actually do the research on how many times we actually saw a Kelly/Randle front line at center and PF.

not much at all if at all... looking at top 20 floor units and those two (Randl Kelly) were never on the floor once and the number 20 unit only played together for 31 minutes total all season so if they did play together it wasn't for very long at all..

[ALL HAIL]

kelly only played in 33 or something games this season (zero starts) and his minutes were all over the place... one night it's 20 minutes few games off then a game where he plays 2 minutes... he only averaged one 3 pt attempt per game so if you want to bag on him feel free but you're kind of chasing nonsense.

You can't take away anything of substance from this season but if you're going to use stats to take away then you have to give too...using per 100 possessions look at stats then you'll find he's a better defender than Randle and Black, 3rd best rebounder, leads all the big men in steals, had a better FG% than Kobe, Young and Metta and turned the ball over less than all the starters and main bench crew...

like I said using stats on him this season is nonsense

btw his first two seasons he shot 34% from behind the arc but he played more consistent minutes

I'm not the biggest Kelly fan but for the price it's worth giving him real chance to show what he has...

I'm in 100% agreement here. Stats do, in fact, lie sometimes. CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.

We're obviously on the same side of this argument.

I was merely asking the question so someone else (not me -- too lazy) could actually do the research on how many times we actually saw a Kelly/Randle front line at center and PF.

not much at all if at all... looking at top 20 floor units and those two (Randl Kelly) were never on the floor once and the number 20 unit only played together for 31 minutes total all season so if they did play together it wasn't for very long at all..

... And that, my friend, is A DAMN SHAME!

In a season where next to nothing was gained, the notion of experimentation should've been sent down from the front office if Scott was too bull-headed to do it himself.

I swear this organization has no vision or imagination.

[stan francisco]

Jump shooting centers are lame anyway. Give me a dominant prime Shaq today and GSW have to do a complete roster make-over starting with a big man. It's a big man's game, it's a strong man's game. Give me Tarik Black over Kelly at C, Bass over Kelly at PF/C, Nancy over Kelly at SF/PF, A Brown over Kelly at SF. He's already third string, now add a star SF and a star C. Trade Kelly and his imaginary expertise 3pt shooting for a defensive wing, a pick, sweaty towels. Please.

I agree.

Shaq ain't here though -- Julius Randle is. And he's PLENTY strong.

Shaq needed Horry as a floor spreader, and Julius Randle needs the same.

Do you remember when the Lakers were trying to play Shaq and Elden Campbell together?

It kinda reminds me of how Randle and Whiteside'll look together.

I do feel you though. Trust me, I'm an old-school dude. I want a league where physicality and low post play never go out of fashion ... but that ain't the argument.

The argument here is surrounding the existing players with role players who, I believe, will make them better.

Horry, believe it or not, made Shaq (even) better.

A guy "like" Spencer Hawes, defensive weaknesses and all, I believe, would open up the floor and make Randle a much better player.

A 13% shooter doesn't open up the floor for Randle. Quite the opposite.

Defense, defense, defense. This disqualifies Kelly once more. And Hawes, and other twig-bigs.

With Russell, Clarkson (and FA SF signing), we have enough perimeter threats. Whiteside has a decent midrange jumper, the other three can spread the floor. With both Randle and Whiteside protecting our paint, we will win the defensive rebounds game every night. That's what it's about. Defense. Not bugs shooting threes. Stretch bigs are not for me, unless they're someone like Porzingis or Bender that gives you a total unicorn look to work with. But only if they play defense.

[stan francisco]

Why are we even talking about Kelly still? He shoots 13%. That's not good enough to spread the floor, period. I'm getting Kwame flashbacks. "If only he could catch the ball in traffic..." Well, he couldn't.

[gts1]

Why are we even talking about Kelly still? He shoots 13%. That's not good enough to spread the floor, period. I'm getting Kwame flashbacks. "If only he could catch the ball in traffic..." Well, he couldn't.

you're always free to bow out of the conversation.... Some of us want to talk about the whole roster not just our pet players

[stan francisco]

Why are we even talking about Kelly still? He shoots 13%. That's not good enough to spread the floor, period. I'm getting Kwame flashbacks. "If only he could catch the ball in traffic..." Well, he couldn't.

you're always free to bow out of the conversation.... Some of us want to talk about the whole roster not just our pet players

That's why I'm wondering about the amount of Kelly discussions...

[Laker_Kid]

Hibbert says Hi


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

... Dial tone...

hahaha!


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[miggs]

Hibbert says Hi


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

... Dial tone...

hahaha!


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Lol

[LakersSquad]

Al Horford is quickly passing his prime though. He doesnt have that many years left and compared to our group, you want someone who will peak with them.

Horford is the best available this summer his defense passing and jumper makes him ideal. He's the right age because in a year and a half you expect these guys to be ready to take over the team and lead the way. Until that point Horford and whatever other vet we bring in will lead the way.

[milesfides]

All quality centers are max players right now. You're not stealing anybody. You'd have to give up a lot for a disgruntled one (something like Cousins), but that's about it. On the free agent market, it's tough to see how the Lakers would have some advantage over any other team's money.

Every available free agent center would be a serious compromise. And one that's going to cost a lot of money. Festus Ezeli is a huge health risk, hasn't averaged more than 16 minutes a game, has major limitations on offense, and is a free throw liability.

Ryan Kelly is also a risk, but he's going to be a cheap one.

I'd say this - had Frank Kaminsky played under Scott, he probably wouldn't have seen the light of day. Scott has a prejudice against skilled players who don't bang. Scott also has a prejudice against 3-point shooting. He also has a prejudice against passing and ball movement, because Scott successfully made our entire team play selfish ball.

But Kelly is unselfish, is a great big man passer, and he can shoot (proved that every year of his life except last year, with his up-and-down minutes), and improved his rebounding.

It's a low risk move. Kelly won't cost much, and if you look at 7 footers out there who are versatile like he is, it's a short list. You have to ask, did Kelly get a fair shot under Scott?

I think not, so that's another reason why I think we should keep him, because Luke, of all players and coaches, would know how to capitalize on players with skill rather than any perceived toughness or athleticism. Ryan Kelly is the complete opposite of a Byron Scott player, and is a good representative of a Luke Walton player.

And again, there's just not many centers out there, of any capability.

System matters. They pointed that out yesterday - Shaun Livingston was cut by a bunch of teams until he became critical to the Warriors. What if Draymond Green were drafted by a team that gave up on him, because he was positionless, couldn't shoot his first couple of years? His trajectory was deep on the bench, perhaps out of the league, before the Warriors were able to use his skills. System matters.

[stan francisco]

All quality centers are max players right now. You're not stealing anybody. You'd have to give up a lot for a disgruntled one (something like Cousins), but that's about it. On the free agent market, it's tough to see how the Lakers would have some advantage over any other team's money.

Every available free agent center would be a serious compromise. And one that's going to cost a lot of money. Festus Ezeli is a huge health risk, hasn't averaged more than 16 minutes a game, has major limitations on offense, and is a free throw liability.

Ryan Kelly is also a risk, but he's going to be a cheap one.

I'd say this - had Frank Kaminsky played under Scott, he probably wouldn't have seen the light of day. Scott has a prejudice against skilled players who don't bang. Scott also has a prejudice against 3-point shooting. He also has a prejudice against passing and ball movement, because Scott successfully made our entire team play selfish ball.

But Kelly is unselfish, is a great big man passer, and he can shoot (proved that every year of his life except last year, with his up-and-down minutes), and improved his rebounding.

It's a low risk move. Kelly won't cost much, and if you look at 7 footers out there who are versatile like he is, it's a short list. You have to ask, did Kelly get a fair shot under Scott?

I think not, so that's another reason why I think we should keep him, because Luke, of all players and coaches, would know how to capitalize on players with skill rather than any perceived toughness or athleticism. Ryan Kelly is the complete opposite of a Byron Scott player, and is a good representative of a Luke Walton player.

And again, there's just not many centers out there, of any capability.

System matters. They pointed that out yesterday - Shaun Livingston was cut by a bunch of teams until he became critical to the Warriors. What if Draymond Green were drafted by a team that gave up on him, because he was positionless, couldn't shoot his first couple of years? His trajectory was deep on the bench, perhaps out of the league, before the Warriors were able to use his skills. System matters.

Great post, as always. Maybe I'm colored by not having seen him at his best, like in college and so on. I've just never seen him do anything well in the Lakers uniform. Maybe I should look up a highlight reel. I'm not very excited to do it but I will.

System matters greatly. I love players who know how to play angles off the ball, Barcelona soccer style. A healthy passing game requires players with that eye for the game. Maybe he has it. Hard for me to believe simply because I've never seen it.

And like I've prefaced many of my player comments here before: it's impossible to evaluate players while BS is their coach. I'll be open to see myself do a 180 on Kelly if he's still here next year and proves it was all because of Scott. I just can't get over 13%, 5 makes all year, no other real skill visible. If a decent offer came today, I'd trade him.

[miggs]

If we could convince Horford that'd be ideal, may help to also lure his old buddy Joakim Noah for added vet depth especially with Nance saying he'll be playing SF

[stan francisco]

I'm interested in all the things Luke could do utilizing the full talents of a guy like Bender. A total twig big, but very versatile. Plays point forward at 7'0", shoots the three, runs like a deer. Gives us a unique look for opponents to react to. Maybe I see in him what you see in Kelly, miles...

[milesfides]

I like dragan at 3. I just don't think the lakers would keep the pick there. Ben Simmons and Ingram are viewed as more likely to make an impact right away, so that could convince the lakers to keep the top 2 (barring any tempting offers). I think bender would probably follow portzingis' development; wow us with his size, skills, and potential, but I don't think he'd be ready to help us into the playoffs his rookie season. And Jim Buss can't afford the long game.