RealGM

http://www.silverscreenandroll.com/platform/amp/2017/2/10/14576236/la-lakers-trade-or-keep-jordan-clarkson-future-on-the-lakers


The attached round table discussion though long provided a nice analysis on two questions surrounding Clarkson:

Do you think playing with Lou Williams has been detrimental to Clarkson's development? If so, would trading Lou help to reverse this trend?

If Clarkson ultimately is who he is right now in terms of development, is he a worthy long-term piece to keep around? If not, would you attempt to trade him this offseason for pieces that better complement the current core?

Some of the caveats they gave to frame the discussion where as follows:

" Clarkson now no longer defends effectively (-2.31 DRPM), creates opportunities for his teammates consistently (12.6 AST%), or scores efficiently enough to make up for the aforementioned limitations (52.6 TS%).

This noted, there are noted caveats with respect to whether this is truly the current state of Clarkson’s play, namely the presence of Lou Williams, who commands an enormous portion of the offense whenever he is on the floor and limits Clarkson’s ability to make plays and regain the point guard chops he demonstrated in his rookie season.

By the same token, however, Clarkson will turn 25 this summer and is far closer to realizing what type of player he will be than essentially every other member of the young core..."



Personally I feel like he's definitely being limited by Williams' presence and would benefit greatly from Lou being moved. At the same time, i feel like the improvement we'd see would be notable but not significant. He's going to be 25 before next season starts and he's at an age where you basically are what you are. I think he's a valuable player who will be able to play a valuable role on a playoff caliber team, but a core piece he is not.

I think he has those PG chops that we failed to develop partly due to Russell being better at using possessions and secondly due to Walton kind of labeling him as a scorer and putting him alongside Lou.

There is scope for improvement but I doubt it will on Walton's watch as Luke has resorted to giving Calderon and Huertas starting PG minutes in Russell's absence before considering Clarkson. He will be a considerable trade piece of we could convince someone like Brooklyn, Knicks or bulls that he could be their PG of the future.

I think it's funny how clarkson is looked at as a finished product because of his age and he is only 6 months older than Larry nance jr who gets none of the age criticism.

WVlakerfan wrote:I think it's funny how clarkson is looked at as a finished product because of his age and he is only 6 months older than Larry nance jr who gets none of the age criticism.

That's probably because despite his lack of a shot, Nance is already a very productive player on both ends of the court.

While I do agree that having Williams and to a lesser degree Nick probably has set him back a bit, I can't say that I'm a big fan of his. I think even a mediocre player can contribute to a good team under the right circumstances, so it's not that he can't be a valuable chip. For example, Jordan would have been a great sixth or seventh man for our recent championship teams when we were relying on Vujacic, Farmar and Brown. I just have never seen him as being an undeniable core piece. (Frankly, I'm not completely sold on anybody we have on the roster.) His flaws -- terrible defense and mediocre shooting -- are pretty critical for a guard, so it's hard to be overly excited about him at this stage given how far we have to go.

Clarkson is what he is. He's a score first guard. I think he's a very valuable bench player and in the right situation a similar spark plug scorer to guys like Lou Williams etc. in the future. The idea that he's being compared to Russell constantly is more about Russell's progress than it is about Clarkson IMHO. They are different players with much different skill sets.

I've seen Clarkson really excel in the last few games running the Pick and Roll with Zubac. He's done that very well. I think it's because he is a threat to finish at the rim which is something we do lack in our other guards.

It seems that because he's closer to his ceiling than others (that's the common thought because of age anyway) that he's no longer a guy we should keep. Until we get a guard that can penetrate and finish I'd say he's very necessary for us to keep. Especially if we trade away Williams and/or Young.

The age/ceiling thing is way overblown IMO as well. There are a crap load of players that peaked at 20-22 and there are ones that didn't peak until much later in their careers. Experience is part of it but situations are as well. I don't put much into the "wait for 2 more years" stuff with younger players.

Of our younger guys he has the most consistent shooting % and is proving to be durable. He's also about the only player other than Russell that could go for 30 on a given night. Clarkson's scoring will be important when we move the vet guards. Shooting at a 45% clip is the best of our 4 rotational guards for example.

The most written criticism of him is a "lack of passing". Others say it's changed so much from last year to this year as well. I think you need to look at the situations to see the answer to that. We have two score first guards playing with a group that has severe limitations in where they can score from. To get an assist with our second unit you have to pass it to Clarkson or Williams. The rest of that group is not offensively talented at all. Nance, Black and Ingram all struggle offensively and teams really just pack the paint night in and night out against them. Put him in a lineup with a true scorer (which we don't have) and I think you'd see his assist numbers change some.

As for the advanced stat stuff. Is he a good defender? No... not really. Does any stat gauge effort? nope. I see a lot of effort and a lack of technique and discipline. You can teach the latter 2 but the first one is innate to a players make up. I'll take misplaced effort over a lack of effort any day. You can work with that.

I think he has the possibility to be a great contrast to Russell's less forceful way of playing. We need a change of pace guy and if we're looking for changes the makeup of our younger guys I'd start with Randle because we have young guys in Black and Nance that bring most of what he does. If we move Clarkson, Young doesn't come back next year and we trade Williams we really have a lot of holes to fill at guard. I'm not sure trading Clarkson doesn't bring back a player with similar issues anyway. To me he's one of the least of our worries with the younger guys.

Slava wrote:

WVlakerfan wrote:I think it's funny how clarkson is looked at as a finished product because of his age and he is only 6 months older than Larry nance jr who gets none of the age criticism.

That's probably because despite his lack of a shot, Nance is already a very productive player on both ends of the court.

So you are perfectly fine with nance jr being the exact same player 3 years from now that he is today?

WVlakerfan wrote:

Slava wrote:

WVlakerfan wrote:I think it's funny how clarkson is looked at as a finished product because of his age and he is only 6 months older than Larry nance jr who gets none of the age criticism.

That's probably because despite his lack of a shot, Nance is already a very productive player on both ends of the court.

So you are perfectly fine with nance jr being the exact same player 3 years from now that he is today?

That's not what you asked and that's not what I wrote.

Slava wrote:

WVlakerfan wrote:

Slava wrote:
That's probably because despite his lack of a shot, Nance is already a very productive player on both ends of the court.

So you are perfectly fine with nance jr being the exact same player 3 years from now that he is today?

That's not what you asked and that's not what I wrote.

I didn't ask anything. I stated how I think it's hypocritical to think jordan clarkson is a finished product because of his age but larry nance is not when they are only 6 months apart.

WVlakerfan wrote:

Slava wrote:

WVlakerfan wrote:So you are perfectly fine with nance jr being the exact same player 3 years from now that he is today?

That's not what you asked and that's not what I wrote.

I didn't ask anything. I stated how I think it's hypocritical to think jordan clarkson is a finished product because of his age but larry nance is not when they are only 6 months apart.

You said Nance "doesn't get any of the age criticism" and I explained why he doesn't.

I think Clarkson's development is up to him.
He has shown that he can be an effective scorer, and there is a place in this league for that kind of player.
But if his desire is to start, he has to be a more consistent scorer and defender..

As is, he is a bench player who can come in and score for a second unit.

I do think though that he has the potential to be a better player, and to eventually start somewhere in the league.

He does need to work on his game, to improve defense and consistent scoring.

If your a decent scout, you could see the limitations in JC's game his rookie season. and the lack of a high ceiling.

If you have laker tinted glasses, you think that JC was the next Kobe.

I think Jordan can be a starting point guard in the league. However, I think what Jordan is right now is what he will ever be. I think on a playoff team he can be a great 6th man. I don't think he or Russell will be a true floor leader. But Lou has definitely hurt Jordan this year. Lou needs to be traded to a playoff team that he can help like Cavaliers, Celtics, or raptors. Jordan needs to be packaged with Randle and a bad contract if possible (deng/mozgov) for someone. I don't think we should really worry about having a core yet because these guys are not core material yet. Ingram, Zubac, Nance are keepers for now along with Russell maybe. That being said no one should be untouchable on our roster for the right player. We don't have any diamonds yet.

Vesper wrote:If your a decent scout, you could see the limitations in JC's game his rookie season. and the lack of a high ceiling.

If you have laker tinted glasses, you think that JC was the next Kobe.

Whoa.... does that go for others who are younger on the team? Or is there a magic age where potential is no longer a valid argument point?

Define "high ceiling". That is a great catch all buzz word to me. A second round pick who is your first guy off the bench and has the ability to score 20 a night given the minutes seems like a decent player to me. Is "high ceiling" only reserved for All Stars or staff stuffers like Westbrook? Where we got him and for what he costs I'd say he's a good value for us.

Is he a complete player? No but we don't have one on the squad anywhere so that seems like a moot point to me. Zubac is the closest to a complete 2 way player that we have and he's 19 and has played less than 20 games.

It seems that Clarkson here in Laker land is the victim of Laker lands expectations rather than his true value on a team.

He's a score first 2 guard who's athletic and brings energy. Sometimes bad energy sometimes good. He's also our best guard at shooting the ball and is the only one who can get to the hoop and finish consistently. It would seem that if we're getting rid of him we need to replace that type of production... especially if Young doesn't resign (or is traded) and Williams is traded. I definitely would keep him over Young and Williams at this point.

Landsberger wrote:

Vesper wrote:If your a decent scout, you could see the limitations in JC's game his rookie season. and the lack of a high ceiling.

If you have laker tinted glasses, you think that JC was the next Kobe.

Whoa.... does that go for others who are younger on the team? Or is there a magic age where potential is no longer a valid argument point?

Define "high ceiling". That is a great catch all buzz word to me. A second round pick who is your first guy off the bench and has the ability to score 20 a night given the minutes seems like a decent player to me. Is "high ceiling" only reserved for All Stars or staff stuffers like Westbrook? Where we got him and for what he costs I'd say he's a good value for us.

Is he a complete player? No but we don't have one on the squad anywhere so that seems like a moot point to me. Zubac is the closest to a complete 2 way player that we have and he's 19 and has played less than 20 games.

It seems that Clarkson here in Laker land is the victim of Laker lands expectations rather than his true value on a team.

He's a score first 2 guard who's athletic and brings energy. Sometimes bad energy sometimes good. He's also our best guard at shooting the ball and is the only one who can get to the hoop and finish consistently. It would seem that if we're getting rid of him we need to replace that type of production... especially if Young doesn't resign (or is traded) and Williams is traded. I definitely would keep him over Young and Williams at this point.

Nope. It goes for attributes....

Age is not as relevant as people think. For example, Randle, even though is still young, I would never see his growth being anything but minimal. Fans were blinded by random stats like double doubles when it came to Randle and figured since he had good rebounding stats, he had a good "motor." When in reality, Randle has the worst motor out of every big man on our team, even though he is the most physically blessed one.

Concerning Clarkson, everyone knows that every team sagged off the lakers in the second half of his rookie season putting up empty stats on a crappy team. Once Kobe went down, opponents dont care about the lakers bro. Clarkson got hyped for putting up numbers on a bad team when everyone was injured and he was the focal point of the offense. Remember how great freaking Kendall looked for us as being the focal point of the offense on a bad team.

Clarkson is what he is. A baller with elite speed/quickness, good finishing, decent shooting and tunnel vision, crappy bbiq and defense. LOU WILLIAMS is better than Clarkson at everything outside of giving an effort defensively.

Also, the second round argument is done now. Clarkson is getting paid 50m.

WHen in comes to Clarkson, he was a guy that had the opportunity to play minutes and had a coach that gave him the green light and freedom. However, most guys in the league dont get that chance and freedom. That is the main difference between Clarkson and another player.

Vesper wrote:

Landsberger wrote:

Vesper wrote:If your a decent scout, you could see the limitations in JC's game his rookie season. and the lack of a high ceiling.

If you have laker tinted glasses, you think that JC was the next Kobe.

Whoa.... does that go for others who are younger on the team? Or is there a magic age where potential is no longer a valid argument point?

Define "high ceiling". That is a great catch all buzz word to me. A second round pick who is your first guy off the bench and has the ability to score 20 a night given the minutes seems like a decent player to me. Is "high ceiling" only reserved for All Stars or staff stuffers like Westbrook? Where we got him and for what he costs I'd say he's a good value for us.

Is he a complete player? No but we don't have one on the squad anywhere so that seems like a moot point to me. Zubac is the closest to a complete 2 way player that we have and he's 19 and has played less than 20 games.

It seems that Clarkson here in Laker land is the victim of Laker lands expectations rather than his true value on a team.

He's a score first 2 guard who's athletic and brings energy. Sometimes bad energy sometimes good. He's also our best guard at shooting the ball and is the only one who can get to the hoop and finish consistently. It would seem that if we're getting rid of him we need to replace that type of production... especially if Young doesn't resign (or is traded) and Williams is traded. I definitely would keep him over Young and Williams at this point.

Nope. It goes for attributes....

Age is not as relevant as people think. For example, Randle, even though is still young, I would never see his growth being anything but minimal. Fans were blinded by random stats like double doubles when it came to Randle and figured since he had good rebounding stats, he had a good "motor." When in reality, Randle has the worst motor out of every big man on our team, even though he is the most physically blessed one.

Concerning Clarkson, everyone knows that every team sagged off the lakers in the second half of his rookie season putting up empty stats on a crappy team. Once Kobe went down, opponents dont care about the lakers bro. Clarkson got hyped for putting up numbers on a bad team when everyone was injured and he was the focal point of the offense. Remember how great freaking Kendall looked for us as being the focal point of the offense on a bad team.

Clarkson is what he is. A baller with elite speed/quickness, good finishing, decent shooting and tunnel vision, crappy bbiq and defense. LOU WILLIAMS is better than Clarkson at everything outside of giving an effort defensively.

Also, the second round argument is done now. Clarkson is getting paid 50m.

WHen in comes to Clarkson, he was a guy that had the opportunity to play minutes and had a coach that gave him the green light and freedom. However, most guys in the league dont get that chance and freedom. That is the main difference between Clarkson and another player.

I think the second round thing is still relevant. Anything we get for him will be more than a second rounder I'd think.

As for the other things you've mentioned. That can be said for everyone else on the team can't it. I see Clarkson being every bit as valuable as Lou over the next few years given the right situation. He can get to the hoop and finish and still shoots it decently from distance.

One thing I think is overrated is "passing". It seems that the fan's perspective on this is universal. Everyone should pass all the time. In a balanced team situation you have to have guys who want to shoot first or you'll be very easy to defend. I know that seem counter intuitive but it's not in reality. Is Clarkson a leading scorer type? No. Is he a guy who can quickly get some buckets and change the pace of a game? Yes. I think his "drop off" in passing has as much to do with the lack of people to pass to on the second unit who can hit shots from anywhere but under the hoop. The only assists on the second unit are most likely guys passing to Williams and Clarkson.

Moving Clarkson, Young and Williams is a lot of rotational guards to replace. Moving Williams and Young should be done. I'd only move Clarkson as part of a deal to bring in a true first option kind of guy which we obviously don't have right now. Otherwise he fills a key role when we trade Williams and/or Young.

4 years 50 mil basically means he's overpaid now. When he was being paid the minimum he was a "steal", much like how Chandler Parsons was gushed upon when he was a Rocket and then once he signed for big bux he's lost all of his luster (sure injuries robbed him, but if he were under contract for cheap he'd still be looked upon highly favorably).

Basically the team only needs one combo guard bench gunner. One of Lou Will or Clarkson has to go, keeping both makes the 2nd unit offense way too iso centric, combined with the fact theyre both heavily negative D players, if theyre shot arent falling the bench unit gets MURDERED.

Trade whoever can get us an asset back. If Clarkson can fetch us a low 1st rounder + Expiring then we need to pounce on that ASAP. Lou Will hopefully can go somewhere for a late 1st straight up for cap space. The FO needs to work the phones on playoff contenders who are under the cap and try to extract a 1st out of em for one of Lou Will or JC. Once one of em goes we keep the other and the bench can be balanced more and Ingram/Zubac can get more touches.

Slava wrote:

WVlakerfan wrote:

Slava wrote:
That's not what you asked and that's not what I wrote.

I didn't ask anything. I stated how I think it's hypocritical to think jordan clarkson is a finished product because of his age but larry nance is not when they are only 6 months apart.

You said Nance "doesn't get any of the age criticism" and I explained why he doesn't.

Also, let's not ignore the fact that Clarkson has played almost three times as many minutes. We've had a much bigger opportunity to see what he can and can't do. Or that they have completely different roles.

I think playing alongside Lou has clearly affected the way he approaches the game. Lou dominates the ball so much that when Clarkson gets it he feels the need to get his. His decision making has never been great, but it has regressed noticeably this year, partly because Luke has not put him in the best position to succeed.

Vesper wrote:If your a decent scout, you could see the limitations in JC's game his rookie season. and the lack of a high ceiling.

If you have laker tinted glasses, you think that JC was the next Kobe.

Wow....You know, I've been very big on Clarkson. But that has always been from where he started. I think he was a GREAT find.....for a semi-early second rounder. If he was a top-5 pick, I would consider him a bit of a disappointment.

I can't think of a single person who ever thought he'd be "the next Kobe".

God......it's like Hitler with the political BS.....everything has to always be so black and white. You either think he sucks, or he's the next Kobe. Doesn't that get boring?

Can you pull a quote from these chat boards where someone actually said he'd be the next Kobe? Cause if not....I'm calling BS. The guy was someone we purchased the 2nd-round pick from the T-Wolves (or whoever) and grabbed. In that context....alot of people think it was good work. I'm certainly no fan of our FO these days....but I have always given them credit for that. So I think he's Kobe? Come on.....why do we always detract to this level?