RealGM

I still think Russell will have a Jamal Crawford-like career, but, because I could be wrong, I'd surround him with players who accentuate his strengths then hope for the best. Like I've said before, Russell's got to "be" and "feel" needed on this team. Not needed for skills he doesn't possess, but needed for the skills he's got right now. How often will he be able to assert his will over the more willful players in Williams and Clarkson?

It's a bad mix for Russell. Always has been.

He's not a PG. He's got all the skills that Jamal Crawford has but with better vision and poise. He can still be very good, but he's got to be nurtured properly by surrounding him with older guys who have a marked defensive lean and are also unselfish.

The Lakers need to pull the plug on Lou Williams and Jordan Clarkson. I would be saying the same thing if they were above.500, and Lou Will was doing his nightly YMCA "Horse" exhibition or if Clarkson were going off for twenty in a quarter.

Regardless of the lightning in the bottle outcomes, the pieces need to fit for any long-term success, and Clarkson and Lou Williams are horrible fits next to Russell.

The Lakers, if they're truly committed to Russell's growth, need to surround him with guards who are gritty, unselfish defenders.

Rubio works. Holiday fits even better (because of his offense). I'd rather Russell play alongside a guy "like" Shumpert than guys like Williams and Clarkson. And I'm not knocking them as players. They're both ballers in the right role, but, for Russell's nurturing, deleting them from the roster and replacing them with veteran, defensive, unselfish guards is the Lakers best chance at turning what I think is their "Jamal Crawford" into a "Steve Smith" ... maybe even Harden if they're really, really fortunate.

Trading Williams should be one of our number one priorities even if we didn't have Russell on our team. He's a great scorer, but we could get assets for him from a playoff team. If anything, all Williams does it take touches away from Russell and he might even win us a few games. If Williams was 26, I'd be singing a different tune. But he's in his prime now, and will push us from getting 30 wins to maybe 36, which isn't what we need. I'm not saying we should tank, but we should be putting the best pieces on our team to compliment our young players. Deng is mostly here for a veteran presence, while Williams is not.

Rubio would be a great fit next to D'Angelo - a hard-working defender who just likes to pass and hates to shoot. Russell would shine next to a guy like him, I agree.

Simple, Russell is a combo guard & needs to play with a pass first PG or another combo guard to flourish... Rubio or Holiday are ideal fits... Let him play off the ball and attack... Once we shift Russell to SG, Ingram to SF (stop taking the ball up) & Deng to PF (help with rotation defense) we will play better & get a better read on our ceiling for the future and game plan for the off season...

Well Lou has at maximum one more year with us, so that won't be a long term problem. Unfortunately Clarkson is another story. Having said that I don't see Clarkson really starting at the 2 long term for us, and having someone off the bench that can get buckets isn't a bad thing. Also, the op is placing way too much emphasis on what a PG is. It isn't a traditionally defined position anymore. Lillard, Kyrie, Curry, Harden, Westbrook are all score first players. Not to mention great scorers tend to win more titles than great passers. It's really not something to worry over.

we dont have to trade lou and jc, they arent even in the same unit as russell. lou and jc made our bench 1st in scoring, and the bench lineup is one of the best in the NBA in the beginning of the season. what we need is an off guard like current nick young who shoots lights out from 3 and in catch and shoot situation and hustle on D, but the thing is, nick isnt getting younger. although getting one who could make plays and facilitate would be great too, but getting a "younger" nick "young" seems a little bit more realistic (shumpert is a good example, although i havent watch him this year). my dream is we nag either avery bradley off the celtics or paul george off larry bird (both of which is very unlikely, but in free agency **** can happen) or even gordon hayward (more likely).

ALL HAIL wrote:I still think Russell will have a Jamal Crawford-like career, but, because I could be wrong, I'd surround him with players who accentuate his strengths then hope for the best. Like I've said before, Russell's got to "be" and "feel" needed on this team. Not needed for skills he doesn't possess, but needed for the skills he's got right now. How often will he be able to assert his will over the more willful players in Williams and Clarkson?

It's a bad mix for Russell. Always has been.

He's not a PG. He's got all the skills that Jamal Crawford has but with better vision and poise. He can still be very good, but he's got to be nurtured properly by surrounding him with older guys who have a marked defensive lean and are also unselfish.

The Lakers need to pull the plug on Lou Williams and Jordan Clarkson. I would be saying the same thing if they were above.500, and Lou Will was doing his nightly YMCA "Horse" exhibition or if Clarkson were going off for twenty in a quarter.

Regardless of the lightning in the bottle outcomes, the pieces need to fit for any long-term success, and Clarkson and Lou Williams are horrible fits next to Russell.

The Lakers, if they're truly committed to Russell's growth, need to surround him with guards who are gritty, unselfish defenders.

Rubio works. Holiday fits even better (because of his offense). I'd rather Russell play alongside a guy "like" Shumpert than guys like Williams and Clarkson. And I'm not knocking them as players. They're both ballers in the right role, but, for Russell's nurturing, deleting them from the roster and replacing them with veteran, defensive, unselfish guards is the Lakers best chance at turning what I think is their "Jamal Crawford" into a "Steve Smith" ... maybe even Harden if they're really, really fortunate.

I see his physical tools a lot like you do. My concern is his mental approach and make up. I don't see the concern over quality in his game you do in others who grow quickly. Without it you don't grow regardless of the tools.

I will disagree on Clarkson. I think he is closer to Crawford than Russell. He fits perfectly as Russell's backup. They don't have to be on the floor together to both work on the same team IMHO. He's still young and can be a 15 PPG bench spark. He's not really a front line starter but at his age I wouldn't sell yet. It seems that the debate here is Clarkson OR Russell. Why not find a way for them both to work? I think they can. Clarkson is having a bad stretch right now. He was the reason we won a few of our early games. He's streaky. I think you have to have a few players that think score first and especially on the second unit. Jason Terry, Crawford, Lou and others became very valuable doing that for good teams. Lou AND Clarkson may be the issue.

Williams, Young and Deng can all go to get picks/pieces. I do think no one is going anywhere until the playoffs are dead and buried unless there is a chance at deflecting away from Jim's promise with a blockbuster trade that makes this discussion moot.

I wonder what it would take to get Wilson Chandler on this team.

Obviously this would be a couple years out, but as Ingram develops, do you guys think he could be a good option for the primary ball-handler?

That could enable Russell to play off-ball and might enable us to get a specialist at the other guard position to compensate for Russell's defensive inefficiencies.

crazyeights wrote:Obviously this would be a couple years out, but as Ingram develops, do you guys think he could be a good option for the primary ball-handler?

That could enable Russell to play off-ball and might enable us to get a specialist at the other guard position to compensate for Russell's defensive inefficiencies.

It's the 'primary' part that's the problem...

I think we want to focus as much as possible on being a transition offense... I think we need to get out and run. Which also means we need to focus heavily on Defense...
In both cases, I would like to see Ingram be the focus. I'd like to see us getting stops and running as much as possible, and I want the ball in Ingram's hands when we do...

But when the offense slows down and drops into half court sets, for as much as we need one, I think we want someone else, closer to the ground to be the ball handler... But even then, we should be a motion offense... So if we aren't dribbling, it's not that big a deal...

So in a perfect world, I'd like the offense to be run by and through Ingram (in a couple years), but calling him the primary ball handler seems like a miss-categorization.

I hear you, I guess I mean to say that I agree that D'Angelo needs to play next to either a floor general or another combo guard. I'm wondering if our longterm solution at combo guard might actually be Ingram.

Say what we want about Ingram's offense, but his potential at initiating the offense, handling the ball has been a pleasant surprise for a guy many peg as a stretch 4 in his prime.

So what I mean to say is: anything we do to nurture Russell should factor in Ingram and how the two might play with each other when they're further along in their development.

If we can solve this issue by simply waiting, then why use assets to address it? I wonder if it may work itself out with time.

To put it another way: let's look ahead and ask who will pair best with Russell and Ingram together.

In 2/3 years I don't think we need someone with a steep price tag to handle a lot of the play-making/ball-handling responsibilities.

To me, Ingram seems like a guy we're gonna want to have the ball in his hands a lot. And while we should let Russell utilize his spot-up and off-ball play more, the two of them together might have it covered.

Thoughts?

Russell can be great but I wonder about his debilitating knee issue right now. It looks like he is holding back out there due to his knee. Wish we knew more about his knee, and if it is a Bynum esque situation.

I mean, basically I think the premise that we need to classify Russell as anything more than a "Guard" in today's NBA is flawed. This is basically a 'Guard and Forward' league now... Specialists like PGs, SGs, SF's, PFs and Cs are all sort of last years jean paul gaultier... I don't think that matters as much anymore. And I don't think we want to go back to that with Russell and rip the ball out of his hands, and I don't think we need to do anything major to make his role more finite...

So yeah, I think Ingram and Russell, along with Randle and Clarkson or Young can all share ball handling duties. I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than that...

I do think though, that we need to find a way to get Russell more involved/comfortable in what's going on on the court... He seems like he has more to give but we don't seem to be able to find a way to extract it from him... I just also think that his ceiling is much higher as a ball handling/distributing Guard than it would be as a pure SG. SG's today are more like hybrid forwards... They're too big, fast and explosive for Russell. So I think if he CAN play hybrid Guard, that would be best for everyone long term...

I didn't study Ingram during his year at Duke, but, based on what I've seen of him on the Lakers, he's a better, more comfortable, "initiator" than Russell.

That being said, I don't see Ingram as a main facilitator. He can dribble, he has poise, and he seems unafraid of challenges, but, in my opinion, Russell and Ingram (I agree they should be linked) will be best suited playing with another guard who, in order of importance, .... (1) plays bulldog defense on PGs and SGs (2) is an unselfish team-first guy (3) is a leader (either through veteran experience or through natural inclination), (4) has superior NBA quickness/athleticism and (5) is versatile enough to be an effective contributor with his jumpshot without dominating the ball -- ideally, he shouldn't be a "pure PG" like Avery Johnson, John Stockton, or Rondo.

Holiday is the prototype, but Shumpert would fit the bill as well.

Kilroy wrote:I mean, basically I think the premise that we need to classify Russell as anything more than a "Guard" in today's NBA is flawed. This is basically a 'Guard and Forward' league now... Specialists like PGs, SGs, SF's, PFs and Cs are all sort of last years jean paul gaultier... I don't think that matters as much anymore. And I don't think we want to go back to that with Russell and rip the ball out of his hands, and I don't think we need to do anything major to make his role more finite...

So yeah, I think Ingram and Russell, along with Randle and Clarkson or Young can all share ball handling duties. I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than that...

I do think thought that we need to find a way to get Russell more involved/comfortable in what's going on on the court... He seems like he has more to give but we don't seem to be able to find a way to extract it from him... I just also think that his cieling is much higher as a ball handling/distributing Guard than it would be as a pure SG. SG's today are more like hybrid forwards... They're too big, fast and explosive for Russell. So I think if he CAN play hybrid Guard, that would be best for everyone long term...

I agree completely. I don't want to have a semantical argument. The most important points are, like you stated, Russell needs more catch and shoot opportunities and he needs to play with another"guard" who can effectively balance out Russell's inept defense, with the ability to guard 1s and 2s, essentially hiding Russell.

Neat stat

ALL HAIL wrote:I didn't study Ingram during his year at Duke, but, based on what I've seen of him on the Lakers, he's a better, more comfortable, "initiator" than Russell.

That being said, I don't see Ingram as a main facilitator. He can dribble, he has poise, and he seems unafraid of challenges, but, in my opinion, Russell and Ingram (I agree they should be linked) will be best suited playing with another guard who, in order of importance, .... (1) plays bulldog defense on PGs and SGs (2) is an unselfish team-first guy (3) is a leader (either through veteran experience or through natural inclination), (4) has superior NBA quickness/athleticism and (5) is versatile enough to be an effective contributor with his jumpshot without dominating the ball -- ideally, he shouldn't be a "pure PG" like Avery Johnson, John Stockton, or Rondo.

Holiday is the prototype, but Shumpert would fit the bill as well.

Essentially we need to find the next (young) D-Fish.

I like the Holiday pairing potentially. As far as the upcoming FA market goes I like the mix of offense/defense/age with our core. Plus his LA roots. He's maybe one of the only promising options for us. Although, I wouldn't trade for him unless that was the only way we could retain him.

I'd rather use any assets we have to address the team's next deficit. Which I'm not exactly sure what that would be. We need a better defender on the wing, but I'd like to think that'll be Ingram's spot moving forward. We also have Deng to eventually come off the bench and provide defense at the 3/4.

Then we have Mozgov locked into that can guard the big bigs, 22 minutes a game, big screens and 6 fouls type starter.

We sort of have 3 starting spots (Russell/Mozgov/Ingram) locked up, with Randle as a sort of x-factor. We could go another route and put Ingram as our PF as a stretch 4, look for a physical 3D at the 3?

Holiday
Russell
3D
Ingram
Mozgov

The thing with using Ingram as a stretch 4 is one or two of Deng (likely untradeable), Nance, or Randle would have to go. Which could be good, I'm just not sure what we'd be looking for.

I think projecting 3 years down the road with just the players we have is a flawed analysis. In 3 years it could easily be that Russell and Ingram are no longer here if either they flame out or a deal comes along that nets us the difference maker we're missing.

Ingram looks to be a fill in the box score guy who morphs into what is needed. I'm not sure he's a guy we'll be running an offense through. That's a very valuable player in today's game where everyone is only good at one thing.

Russell is a combo guard at best. PG, SG or what ever.... he's not showing that he's a primary facilitator. Like others have said, at the "other guard" position their are players who he would have trouble with. If this were 1998 it would be clear with him. Now, it's not.

I think as Laker fans we have to look at these guys like it was 94' again. That was a fun but flawed team. They were much further along than this one and almost none of those guys made it to the next contending Laker team. I think this group will prove out to be much of the same. Which of these guys pans out? Who really knows? It's too early on them to see IMHO. You can start to see the holes in reaches game/make up in years 1 and 2. By year 3 you see if they can close them.

Landsberger wrote:I think projecting 3 years down the road with just the players we have is a flawed analysis. In 3 years it could easily be that Russell and Ingram are no longer here if either they flame out or a deal comes along that nets us the difference maker we're missing.

Ingram looks to be a fill in the box score guy who morphs into what is needed. I'm not sure he's a guy we'll be running an offense through. That's a very valuable player in today's game where everyone is only good at one thing.

The flip side is also true.

Your analysis is looking at what these two players are and assuming that's more or less what they are going to be.

Ingram's 19 years old. Russell 20. They have so much potential to unlock here.

noun
noun: pessimism

a tendency to see the worst aspect of things or believe that the worst will happen; a lack of hope or confidence in the future.

Not to say they very well won't turn out to be more than a combo guard and a jack of all trades, but to critique projecting into the future in a thread about nurturing our young blue chip prospects and replacing it with simply the mirror opposite doesn't exactly mean much either.

crazyeights wrote:

Landsberger wrote:I think projecting 3 years down the road with just the players we have is a flawed analysis. In 3 years it could easily be that Russell and Ingram are no longer here if either they flame out or a deal comes along that nets us the difference maker we're missing.

Ingram looks to be a fill in the box score guy who morphs into what is needed. I'm not sure he's a guy we'll be running an offense through. That's a very valuable player in today's game where everyone is only good at one thing.

The flip side is also true.

Your analysis is looking at what these two players are and assuming that's more or less what they are going to be.

Ingram's 19 years old. Russell 20. They have so much potential to unlock here.

noun
noun: pessimism

a tendency to see the worst aspect of things or believe that the worst will happen; a lack of hope or confidence in the future.

Not to say they very well won't turn out to be more than a combo guard and a jack of all trades, but to critique projecting into the future in a thread about nurturing our young blue chip prospects and replacing it with simply the mirror opposite doesn't exactly mean much either.

Realism man. I comment on what I can see. Everything else is based in emotion. I want my penny stock to go to $1,000/share... it's a company with a lot of potential....

I hope you are right with these two. Hope is an emotion.

Young guys have done better than them at this point too. Potential doesn't always get unlocked. The draft lottery is littered with that reality. As a long time fan my wanting it doesn't make it happen.

How about you key the threads where only "irrational exuberance" is allowed? That way I'll know which ones to post in.

crazyeights wrote:

ALL HAIL wrote:I didn't study Ingram during his year at Duke, but, based on what I've seen of him on the Lakers, he's a better, more comfortable, "initiator" than Russell.

That being said, I don't see Ingram as a main facilitator. He can dribble, he has poise, and he seems unafraid of challenges, but, in my opinion, Russell and Ingram (I agree they should be linked) will be best suited playing with another guard who, in order of importance, .... (1) plays bulldog defense on PGs and SGs (2) is an unselfish team-first guy (3) is a leader (either through veteran experience or through natural inclination), (4) has superior NBA quickness/athleticism and (5) is versatile enough to be an effective contributor with his jumpshot without dominating the ball -- ideally, he shouldn't be a "pure PG" like Avery Johnson, John Stockton, or Rondo.

Holiday is the prototype, but Shumpert would fit the bill as well.

Essentially we need to find the next (young) D-Fish.

I like the Holiday pairing potentially. As far as the upcoming FA market goes I like the mix of offense/defense/age with our core. Plus his LA roots. He's maybe one of the only promising options for us. Although, I wouldn't trade for him unless that was the only way we could retain him.

I'd rather use any assets we have to address the team's next deficit. Which I'm not exactly sure what that would be. We need a better defender on the wing, but I'd like to think that'll be Ingram's spot moving forward. We also have Deng to eventually come off the bench and provide defense at the 3/4.

Then we have Mozgov locked into that can guard the big bigs, 22 minutes a game, big screens and 6 fouls type starter.

We sort of have 3 starting spots (Russell/Mozgov/Ingram) locked up, with Randle as a sort of x-factor. We could go another route and put Ingram as our PF as a stretch 4, look for a physical 3D at the 3?

Holiday
Russell
3D
Ingram
Mozgov

The thing with using Ingram as a stretch 4 is one or two of Deng (likely untradeable), Nance, or Randle would have to go. Which could be good, I'm just not sure what we'd be looking for.

I was definitely a thinking of D. Fish as I posted. More of a 6'4 D. Fish with a bit more athleticism though.

The next need is, most definitely, at SF. Even if Ingram becomes the primo wing defender this team needs, they still need another one on the roster, preferably one who is well seasoned. Deng is not a capable SF defender anymore. He may very well be the team's best defender at PF though. Nance has the most defensive talent at PF, but I think Deng is the PF on the roster who is the best defender right now.

Deng needs to start at PF. I've been saying it since the day he was signed. Randle has the most potential to be a franchise cornerstone on this roster (to me), but, with Deng inked, you gotta start him, and let Randle and Deng go to war there for those closing PF minutes.

Nance needs to get his minutes at backup C almost exclusively.

I feel you on not trading for Holiday. I do. But, other than his health, tell me the risks. He'll bolt in free agency? It could happen, but I couldn't see that in a million years. The team empties the cupboard on trade assets when they could sign Holiday outright in free agency? Yeah, but is losing Clarkson and Williams really such a huge loss? Losing them and replacing them with unselfish, defensive minded role players, like I've said, is addition by subtraction.

Losing the two guys who, in my opinion, are in the way of Russell's growth is inconsequential.

So, again, although your logic is sound, I don't see any real risk in acquiring Holiday (for Clarkson and Williams). Especially when you consider there aren't many other trade options for a veteran, defensive swingman.