RealGM

Ignoring any future draft picks coming their way or coaching staffs and focusing just on the rosters that led to the 1 seed vs the 3rd worst record, would you rather have the lakers roster over the celtics? Taking into consideration things like age and potential along with current level of play, is it crazy to rather have the lakers lineup?

dockingsched wrote:Ignoring any future draft picks coming their way or coaching staffs and focusing just on the rosters that led to the 1 seed vs the 3rd worst record, would you rather have the lakers roster over the celtics? Taking into consideration things like age and potential along with current level of play, is it crazy to rather have the lakers lineup?

No, it's not crazy at all. The only things that make Boston appealing are the plethora of picks. If all the picks didn't exist, they lose all their shine.

They're Celtics! That taste is hard to get out of one's mouth!

I'm fine with what we have going on. Even more so if we keep our lottery pick this year.

No

Russell will be better than IT. Randle will be better than any Celtics bigs and Ingram will be better than any Celtics wing.

clear and easy choice

AcecardZ wrote:They're Celtics! That taste is hard to get out of one's mouth!

I'm fine with what we have going on. Even more so if we keep our lottery pick this year.

Do you love Rick Fox?

Do you?

Lets be honest, I would take Boston's. Especially if we're getting that Brooklyn pick.

All things being the same that team with Walton as coach would be very good.

Let the Celtics play in the West ---- 'nuff said.

I'm sure if Kucphak had the same haul, he'd have drafted a heck of a lot better than Terry Rozier, James Young or other assorted busts Ainge managed to pick.

Slava wrote:I'm sure if Kucphak had the same haul, he'd have drafted a heck of a lot better than Terry Rozier, James Young or other assorted busts Ainge managed to pick.

That IT trade though

Dr Aki wrote:

AcecardZ wrote:They're Celtics! That taste is hard to get out of one's mouth!

I'm fine with what we have going on. Even more so if we keep our lottery pick this year.

Do you love Rick Fox?

Do you?

Yes but it took me a long time to accept him as a Laker.

No! If that Boston team plays in the West would they end up as number 1 seed? Most probably NO. They may be better right now but we'll catch up with them in a couple of years. Our player have more room for growth as we are younger. And once we start peaking they are on their way down already.

Lol why not just follow the Celtics? lol...

On a side note can we trade places with them? They can come to the West we'll be in the East

Celtics would be trash in the west.
No, but I hate Smart so bad, I wouldn't trade any roster for a roster with him on it... Maybe I'm not the right one to ask. I think Ingram alone would make the swap a loser in my book.

If you take away their picks, Jaylen Brown is about the only young piece they have that I like. Bradley is a great player and is about to get paid a lot of money. Other than that, no thanks. That kind of roster is not the goal of rebuilding teams, as they are showing right now, they are not even a conference finals team in the weaker conference.

That said and removing the condition about only counting their roster this year, they do have some young stashed players and the obvious nets picks coming to them, so they are in a great position going forward.

RamonSessions7 wrote:

Spens1 wrote:Lets be honest, I would take Boston's. Especially if we're getting that Brooklyn pick.

All things being the same that team with Walton as coach would be very good.

dockingsched wrote:Ignoring any future draft picks coming their way

then maybe not provided we get our pick

Still glad Celtics took Marcus Smart instead of Randle. lol

I don't really get the "if Boston was in the West, blah blah blah" comments as if that even matters; if the Lakers were in the East, they'd still suck & no where close to the #1 seed... given that Boston is a +2.3 SRS team and the Lakers are close to -7. This Boston team is just one of those teams that play really hard in the regular season but don't really live up to expectations in the playoffs.

Boston's roster has some good tradable assets. Thomas is making all of $7 mil & Bradley is at $9 mil if Boston decides to blow it up. Boston can probably get more for those 2 in the this or next off-season than what the Lakers can get with what they currently have...and that is huge. Ainge isn't really afraid to blow it up to get future assets until he can cash in on a superstar too. And I'd rather pay Horford $26 mil than to pay both Deng and Mosgov more than that combined given just how untradable those contracts are and how useless both are now and going into the future. Boston is 1 more all-star away from being really good, and removing Boston's draft pick really hampers things as that pick can be traded for such a player. Without the pick, Boston doesn't have a chance to advance past Toronto and Cleveland.

The Lakers just have 2 or 3 valuable pieces in Russell, Ingram, and possibly Zubac. Russell shows a lot of promise at his age and may look like a future all-star to other teams. Ingram saved his rookie year post all-star break but he did overall have a crap rookie year. Essentially, we're putting a lot of stock into these 2...or really for Russell to be better in the future than Thomas is now. Mosgov and Deng put this team in salary cap hell and signing Randle to an extension may just add to that. I'm not high on either Clarkson or Randle and would trade both for a future pick.

I'd pick Boston simply because they're the better team now. Removing the draft picks yet counting for potential is an odd stipulation to have as I take it to mean going with these rosters going forward...and I don't like Mosgov and Deng's contracts nor do I like the thought of extending Randle to add to that. Then you got Clarkson's contract (who makes more than Thomas and Bradley) and is less valuable than Amir Johnson...and it's a mess.

Roster? No all available assets? Yes, most definitely. If Mitch was in charge of that team he'd probably get BOTH George & Butler without jeopardizing the core.

Thomas/Butler/George/Crowder/Horford

Sheesh.

Three years from now, I think D'Lo, Ingram, and Randle will all be better than anything on the Celtics roster. So from that perspective, I easily pick the Lakers roster. That said, I am a little jealous of how the Celtics have done a good job collecting undervalued second and third tier players. Something the Lakers have not done a good job of lately.