RealGM

Yeah i know, i know. Sorry to make a thread but i feel like id get more responses if i make a new thread and not post under related threads.

But would you guys rather win games this season and hope that through history, getting into the top 3, a lot of the teams have been outside of being The 3 worst teams in the league, in keeping our pick?

Or rather secure as much losses as possible to increase our chances in retaining our pick?

Mods.. Just delete this whenever.

2nd worst record by 1 game may be the best case scenario while giving yourself the best chance at the #1 possible franchise changing pick. Dont think the Lakers will be inept enough to dip below the 76ers. I think the Nets will win enough to allow the Lakers to win some building block games for the young players to develop.

Its not tanking, what the sixers did is tanking. They purposely put out a terrible team on purpose to secure more loses. You think byron wants to lose and get fired? Phi gm knows he created that team to lose and by giving his hc an ext. hes giving him a pass to keep on losing. This team is playing to win, theyre just not good enough

LApwnd wrote:Its not tanking, what the sixers did is tanking. They purposely put out a terrible team on purpose to secure more loses. You think byron wants to lose and get fired? Phi gm knows he created that team to lose and by giving his hc an ext. hes giving him a pass to keep on losing. This team is playing to win, theyre just not good enough

1 piece missing, when Kobe goes they'll be 2 pieces missing. I just hope we find these 1-3 missing pieces next couple years?

skullz wrote:

LApwnd wrote:Its not tanking, what the sixers did is tanking. They purposely put out a terrible team on purpose to secure more loses. You think byron wants to lose and get fired? Phi gm knows he created that team to lose and by giving his hc an ext. hes giving him a pass to keep on losing. This team is playing to win, theyre just not good enough

1 piece missing, when Kobe goes they'll be 2 pieces missing. I just hope we find these 1-3 missing pieces next couple years?

The team clearly plays better without kobe

Russell Lou
Clarkson Brown
Simmons Young
Randle Pau Nance
Whiteside Pau Upshaw

Penberthy wrote:

skullz wrote:

LApwnd wrote:Its not tanking, what the sixers did is tanking. They purposely put out a terrible team on purpose to secure more loses. You think byron wants to lose and get fired? Phi gm knows he created that team to lose and by giving his hc an ext. hes giving him a pass to keep on losing. This team is playing to win, theyre just not good enough

1 piece missing, when Kobe goes they'll be 2 pieces missing. I just hope we find these 1-3 missing pieces next couple years?

The team clearly plays better without kobe

Russell Lou
Clarkson Brown
Simmons Young
Randle Pau Nance
Whiteside Pau Upshaw

Looks good. But did you seriously put Pau in there as in Pau Gasol?? Lmao he ain't coming back. Whiteside is a long-shot, but money talks - Simmons Don't get your hopes up just wait for the draft before getting too excitied .

Id be very happy with Russell/Clarkson/Brown/Randle/Whiteside if we lose our pick. If we have #1 (amen) ill gladly take simmons, if its #2 or #3 id take any great shooter or trade down to get good vets and draft guys that cqn shoot and long like denzel valentine or ingram mac10

skullz wrote: Whiteside is a long-shot, but money talks.

"Whiteside for Howard at the break", but I don't get how Miami saves any money doing that. If the Lakers are battling the Sixers for the top pick the whole season, even Simmons would be hard pressed to attract a top free agent.

Simmons (or a top three pick) would probably not attract major free agents, but I think one possibility that we should take note of is flipping the pick for cousins, and pairing him with a major free agent (obviously Durant). The truth is, like others have mentioned, we aren't really tanking. We just suck. Ending up with the second worst record seems likely at this point, but whether we keep the pick or not, I think we are going to add one more young stud to this core either this year or next year. Without keeping the pick and flipping it for immediate help, I don't see any major free agent coming here. Basically, if we don't keep our pick, I think we suck enough next year to get a decent prospect with our 2017 pick. The FO has been really patient with giving out contracts, I think if the top tier free agents aren't available (doesn't seem too likely), we probably sign one year deals again for another season and then go after Westbrook in 17, which seems like the most likely option anyways of superstars that would come to LA.



But yeah, if we keep the pick, I wouldn't be surprised if we offer it in trades to be attractive to Durant. Kind of like the Love/Lebron situation

You absolutely lose games. There's not nearly as much competition to lose as there was last year.

TylersLakers wrote:You absolutely lose games. There's not nearly as much competition to lose as there was last year.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but if you lose the rest of your games then lose the pick, isn't that disastrous PR?

How does the front-office recover front that type of blow and still remain intact?

The thing i find interesting is that the NBA doesn't want tanking to work because it ultimately hurts the NBA by having 3 or 4 teams trying to loose games to get better via draft. That being said i could see the lakers "Losing" the pick come lottery time just as a deterrent to other teams trying to tank. I also think that is part of the reason the NBA is stepping in on the 76ers to try and get them to win some games and possibly move up in the standings.

WVlakerfan wrote:The thing i find interesting is that the NBA doesn't want tanking to work because it ultimately hurts the NBA by having 3 or 4 teams trying to loose games to get better via draft. That being said i could see the lakers "Losing" the pick come lottery time just as a deterrent to other teams trying to tank. I also think that is part of the reason the NBA is stepping in on the 76ers to try and get them to win some games and possibly move up in the standings.

But doesn't our 2016 pick go to the 76'ers if it's outside the top 3. How does the 76'ers picking up another lottery pick deter tanking?

lake_show wrote:

WVlakerfan wrote:The thing i find interesting is that the NBA doesn't want tanking to work because it ultimately hurts the NBA by having 3 or 4 teams trying to loose games to get better via draft. That being said i could see the lakers "Losing" the pick come lottery time just as a deterrent to other teams trying to tank. I also think that is part of the reason the NBA is stepping in on the 76ers to try and get them to win some games and possibly move up in the standings.

But doesn't our 2016 pick go to the 76'ers if it's outside the top 3. How does the 76'ers picking up another lottery pick deter tanking?

That is why i thought the situation was interesting. One of the two teams has to get better from tanking. The 76'ers are the lesser of the 2 evils for the NBA because they still have a dumpster fire of ownership and front office personnel and even with a 2 more picks they will still probably have a poor season next year due to the way the team is made up. The lakers however with a top wing prospect and a coaching change could be a much better team next year.

just keep losing as many games as possible and hope to draft ben simmons or ingram
pick up noah or horford in the offseason
pick up batum
let nick young walk for a backup PG.
resign hibbert and bring him off the bench
resign lou williams and bring him off the bench as 6th man
let sacre, huertas go

russell/backup pg
clarkson/lou
batum/draft pick/nance
randle/bass
noah or horford/hibbert

funny thing is that the tank was in the bag when Kobe was celebrating his retirement tour by heaving everything from downtown. and it wasn't like Byron was discouraging him. but now that he's part of moving the ball around, he's got fewer attempts going in at a decent percentage. Russell is looking better. the team is more competitive. progress or problem?

A better way to re-frame this question is, do you want the youngsters to play and get better as the season progresses? Do you want an end to "DLO is a bust!" threads, and have something too look forward to from him, Randle, etc.?

If so, that will mean some wins this year. I think that scenario is better than losing every single game for the rest of the year, which doesn't bode well for the current players (regardless of tomorrow's magic beans.)

The only thing worse than an 8th seed treadmill, is a lottery treadmill.

madmaxmedia wrote:A better way to re-frame this question is, do you want the youngsters to play and get better as the season progresses? Do you want an end to "DLO is a bust!" threads, and have something too look forward to from him, Randle, etc.?

If so, that will mean some wins this year. I think that scenario is better than losing every single game for the rest of the year, which doesn't bode well for the current players (regardless of tomorrow's magic beans.)

The only thing worse than an 8th seed treadmill, is a lottery treadmill.

True. However, keep winning games to increase our chances of losing a pick who could very well be the next lebron or durant to add to our young core, or keep losing and we can still develop thr young core anyway.

I just hope that if we keep winning, we end up with a cavs/bulls type luck and not a mid lottery team like the kings or pelicans who might get lucky and steal the top prospect away from us.

Tarik_shaq wrote:True. However, keep winning games to increase our chances of losing a pick who could very well be the next lebron or durant to add to our young core, or keep losing and we can still develop thr young core anyway.

I just hope that if we keep winning, we end up with a cavs/bulls type luck and not a mid lottery team like the kings or pelicans who might get lucky and steal the top prospect away from us.

The Lakers have 3 very nice young players, 2 of which were lottery picks. At some point if these guys are developing, it means some wins- especially as the season progresses. To actually try to impede that (and I know you're not suggesting that) is subtraction by (attempted) addition IMO.

I think ultimately we will need a superstar level player to go with our core 3-4 guys, to contend for a championship. But if the 'supporting cast' develops and is competitive, I think the chances of signing a FA goes up significantly. Fortunately the Lakers have that luxury playing in Los Angeles- and the best way to improve your FA chances is to play better, not worse. It might not happen this offseason, but even the number 1 pick will take time to develop anyways (not that they're typically 19 years old.)

If there were 10 games left in the season, and the Lakers had the 2nd worst record in the league, then obviously we'd all be hoping to lose the last 10 games and have the best shot at the #1 pick, or least keeping the pick again. But right now? The team is starting to play better, DLO is playing better, and I think it's best for the Lakers for that to continue.

Even if the Lakers are not a GOOD team, they are fun to watch when the young guys are playing well, and Kobe is leading not only by shots taken but by example.

Who knows, maybe the Lakers finish at the #6 spot and get lucky in the lottery anyway...or they finish #2 or #3 and LOSE the pick anyway.

ALL HAIL wrote:

TylersLakers wrote:You absolutely lose games. There's not nearly as much competition to lose as there was last year.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but if you lose the rest of your games then lose the pick, isn't that disastrous PR?

How does the front-office recover front that type of blow and still remain intact?

Good point. However, I don't know if the front office will ever recover from the PR if we DON'T get the pick, whether we win 10 games or 30. It's not being talked about as much now, but come draft time, when Ben Simmons, Jaylen Brown, Jamal Murray are getting picked and if we DON'T have a pick, we'll get trashed on either way unless we make the playoffs or make a huge run, which isn't happening.