RealGM

I dont recall the reason why we didn't keep him but wasn't it pretty simple to keep him? Wasnt that contract opt just 1mill or so? I know we kept henry over him but henry not even in the league no more

We should pay him and thank Atlanta for teaching him how to shoot and play defense.

ArC_man wrote:We should pay him and thank Atlanta for teaching him how to shoot and play defense.

I agree....they need to max out horford so maybe he'll come if offer is right

I would love to have him back. I'm hoping he'll be part of the "key signings" of the team after chasing (and hopefully, signing) the big names. He really played well during the later part of the 2013-14 season when he got the minutes.

I think after Durant, Horford and DeRozan, he should be one of the primary targets -- however we would have to trade Lou Williams, for sure.

A 3 guard rotation of Russell/Bazemore with Clarkson off the bench is a perfect combination. Three players where their skills mesh together.

Why we didn't keep him is beyond me. Most of us screamed for him to still be here. That off-season will forever haunt us waiting for Carmelo Anthony. Should have went after Lowry (who said he wanted to sign here, but didn't hear from us) and kept pieces like Bazemore.

I don't even think Mitch offered him his qualifying offer to make him a RFA. Wasted that summer chasing after Melo.

I've been saying all year that he should be a very high priority this offseason. He's a rock solid 2/3 who can shoot and defend, and won't come with the Barnes/Parsons/Batum price tag.

He played with a ton of fire when he was with us, and I can't believe the front office chooses to sign guys like Nick Young and Lou Williams over him. Lou and Nick are not the type of guys who are rotation players on championship teams, Bazemore could be.

if we could get him back at the three, I'd love it. Hated to see him go

It'd be a great affordable pickup at the 2. Never should have let go of him in the first place, one of the bad decisions by management, choosing chuckers like Lou and nick instead of athletic, all-around young talent like Bazemore.

Entire league is thin at the wings, and none more than us.

I think 5/50 would be a solid deal. His peers are going to be looking at 20+ million a year, but I have the feeling he's not going to get those offers as he doesn't have the name recognition yet.

Frank Dux wrote:I think 5/50 would be a solid deal. His peers are going to be looking at 20+ million a year, but I have the feeling he's not going to get those offers as he doesn't have the name recognition yet.

The longest contract LAL can offer is 4 years and every GM in the league knows his name. I think he will get 4/50-56

If I can choose.
I being Bazemore over Russell.
He is ****.
Our team can not play defense.
Defense is first priority....I think.

Bring*

mambo wrote:If I can choose.
I being Bazemore over Russell.
He is ****.
Our team can not play defense.
Defense is first priority....I think.

Are you saying you would get rid of Russell and replace him with Bazemore? If so, WOW.

mambo wrote:If I can choose.
I being Bazemore over Russell.
He is ****.
Our team can not play defense.
Defense is first priority....I think.

mambo wrote:If I can choose.
I being Bazemore over Russell.
He is ****.
Our team can not play defense.
Defense is first priority....I think.

Yeah, but your still stupid now get the **** out.

mambo wrote:If I can choose.
I being Bazemore over Russell.
He is ****.
Our team can not play defense.
Defense is first priority....I think.

1. Russell projects to be at least an average defender.
2. They don't play the same position.
3. Bazemore is a role playing 3/D swingman, while Russell is a point guard.
4. We can sign Bazemore, and his presence on the team has no bearing on Russell.
5. Russell is the least of our worries in terms of defense. His wing defensive help? Fossilized Kobe, Nick Young, Clarkson, and Lou Williams. We have the worst defensive personnel in the league.

When the Steve blake trade happen, I was SO HAPPY, because in limited mins Baze looked good (so did that green guy)

Getting Baze and brooks for an expiring steve blake that wasn't in long term plans was a coup!!!!

I thought it would ring in a new era of smart trades!

Then the lakers let him walk, and haven't make any trades since then...


Now, (like I thought then), I think it was just Jerry West throwing the lakers a bone...

I do project Clarkson as a long term 6th man combo guard. So getting the right starter at the SG spot next to Russell is VERY important

TKainZero wrote:I do project Clarkson as a long term 6th man combo guard. So getting the right starter at the SG spot next to Russell is VERY important

Clarkson is a Starter. He is the best and most consistent player on the team. He is a free agent this summer and will receive contract offer from other teams to be their starter. The Lakers can offer Clarkson a four-year contract up to $88.9 million, or match an offer sheet signed by Clarkson. The Lakers will guarantee Clarkson what the other teams are offering him, which is a starting position. Clarkson and his agent will insist on it, before they sign. He will then be the highest paid player on the team.

It does not make sense to put your best, most consistent player who has a great work ethic, great attitude and also happens to be your highest paid player, on the bench.

warrenepeace must be Clarkson's mum.