RealGM

People are saying all his lakers stuff got removed on twitter...

Something about to happen?

Zach Lowe said Clarkson has really low value around the league, even Randle doesn't carry much weight. There's a reason we had to dig deep and throw Russell in there to move salary.

There's a lot of value in staying lean and keeping only players that outplay their contracts. To become a 60 win team, you essentially have to underpay your roster as a whole by about 50 million. When you have a "deng it, he's on my books" on your books, you need to start looking for opportunities elsewhere. PJ has a similar player profile and seems to be the logical cheap replacement.

There's also a lot of value in not putting all your eggs in one basket. So far, Jordan's advanced stats leave a lot to be desired. He can't shoot threes, doesn't draw fouls (he likes to avoid contact with floaters and scoops), and had about just as many head scratching turnovers as D'Lo last year. His defense is mediocre and he's getting too old to use the word potential on him. At the end of the day though, you're paying for future production, not past. His contract honestly is not the albatross that quite a few users are making it out to be. Jordan's still extremely athletic and can score in spurts when hot. He also provided the bulk of the team's dribble penetration last season (6.4 per game, with the next highest being Randle at 3.8). I'm convinced that his playmaking abilities were hurt by a combination of D'Lo as the primary ball handler as well encouragement from the coaching staff to score more. The tools are still there and there's a decent chance that he at least puts some of it together. Again, it all boils down to whether or not you're riding the Paul George and Lebron train.

Who would be left at guard? Clarkson is serviceable as a starter and unless we're just dumping him it would seem that he'd have more value at the deadline if a team got an injury. The lack of guards would mean Ball would be playing big minutes from the start. I'm not sure that's ever a good idea with a youngster at this level.

I think he's got improvement left in him on a solid team. Judging youngsters on rosters filled with youngsters is difficult. If we're selling on him, why not wait unless this is a trade for George or another star level player?

Damn. Looks like JC's getting shipped. I have this weird feeling he's going to be the next in line or main piece in the PG deal. The question is, for who? Is Pritchard finally giving up? Magic didn't even mention him during Lonzo's press conference although Ingram wasn't included also. He mentioned Randle, Nance & Zubac.

Sent from my SM-J710GN using RealGM mobile app

Apparently Clarkson's twitter hasn't really changed

I think its happening. After draft night it was way to strange.

Also i don't think he has no value like Lowe says. He's a high character guy who has potential defensively, is pretty athletic and has shown ability in almost everything (shooting, defending, playmaking). I wouldn't be against keeping him to be honest, i'd just want him to be more efficient. He'll never be a superstar or even an all star, i think we all know that by now, but he is a solid player in the rotation.

I think i will be sadder about this than Russell to be honest. I was mad about that deal but their was some relief because Russell at times was an absolute idiot and distraction. Clarkson on the other hand has been nothing but high character. He is a guy we've seen grow and develop over the years and is on the cusp.

Jon Snow wrote:Damn. Looks like JC's getting shipped. I have this weird feeling he's going to be the next in line or main piece in the PG deal. The question is, for who? Is Pritchard finally giving up? Magic didn't even mention him during Lonzo's press conference although Ingram wasn't included also. He mentioned Randle, Nance & Zubac.

Sent from my SM-J710GN using RealGM mobile app

They better not even think of dealing Ingram unless someone massively overpays for him (like porzingis, simmons, giannis, davis etc).

Spens1 wrote:I think its happening. After draft night it was way to strange.

Also i don't think he has no value like Lowe says. He's a high character guy who has potential defensively, is pretty athletic and has shown ability in almost everything (shooting, defending, playmaking). I wouldn't be against keeping him to be honest, i'd just want him to be more efficient. He'll never be a superstar or even an all star, i think we all know that by now, but he is a solid player in the rotation.

I think i will be sadder about this than Russell to be honest. I was mad about that deal but their was some relief because Russell at times was an absolute idiot and distraction. Clarkson on the other hand has been nothing but high character. He is a guy we've seen grow and develop over the years and is on the cusp.

I doubt Clarkson gets traded now. The draft is over and we unloaded Moz. We need Clarkson to fill our guard position. I think the FO wanted to check the value and check possible trade scenarios for everyone other than Ingram. Right now, we need guards and I doubt he gets traded although over the next summer is a whole different story.

Jordan Clarkson played so great off the bench. He never once complained......why trade him ?

Landsberger wrote:Who would be left at guard? Clarkson is serviceable as a starter and unless we're just dumping him it would seem that he'd have more value at the deadline if a team got an injury. The lack of guards would mean Ball would be playing big minutes from the start. I'm not sure that's ever a good idea with a youngster at this level.

I think he's got improvement left in him on a solid team. Judging youngsters on rosters filled with youngsters is difficult. If we're selling on him, why not wait unless this is a trade for George or another star level player?

No he's not a serviceable starter. He's not a good shooter, he's not good at moving off the ball, he's not a good defender, and he's not a particularly good distributor. Role players that surround your stars need to be really good at the one or two things they're asked to do.

That's the thing with Clarkson, he's not a star with an overall above average skill set, and he's not really really good at anything you'd want your role players to focus on. Players like that are hard to give significant minutes to.

He's really just to a stop gap, a player you bring off the bench that you hope will keep you in it.

crazy8ights wrote:

Read on Twitter

What the hell does that mean? lol

LakersSoul wrote:

Spens1 wrote:I think its happening. After draft night it was way to strange.

Also i don't think he has no value like Lowe says. He's a high character guy who has potential defensively, is pretty athletic and has shown ability in almost everything (shooting, defending, playmaking). I wouldn't be against keeping him to be honest, i'd just want him to be more efficient. He'll never be a superstar or even an all star, i think we all know that by now, but he is a solid player in the rotation.

I think i will be sadder about this than Russell to be honest. I was mad about that deal but their was some relief because Russell at times was an absolute idiot and distraction. Clarkson on the other hand has been nothing but high character. He is a guy we've seen grow and develop over the years and is on the cusp.

I doubt Clarkson gets traded now. The draft is over and we unloaded Moz. We need Clarkson to fill our guard position. I think the FO wanted to check the value and check possible trade scenarios for everyone other than Ingram. Right now, we need guards and I doubt he gets traded although over the next summer is a whole different story.

ultimately i think if it is a question of trading for P.G and getting him now i think they will. Also we don't even know still if he is a 2 guard. He could be a P.G still for all we know. Also we can either play Ingram at S.G, go with Nwamba or Brewer at S.G for a year or sign one for a year.

dockingsched wrote:

Landsberger wrote:Who would be left at guard? Clarkson is serviceable as a starter and unless we're just dumping him it would seem that he'd have more value at the deadline if a team got an injury. The lack of guards would mean Ball would be playing big minutes from the start. I'm not sure that's ever a good idea with a youngster at this level.

I think he's got improvement left in him on a solid team. Judging youngsters on rosters filled with youngsters is difficult. If we're selling on him, why not wait unless this is a trade for George or another star level player?

No he's not a serviceable starter. He's not a good shooter, he's not good at moving off the ball, he's not a good defender, and he's not a particularly good distributor. Role players that surround your stars need to be really good at the one or two things they're asked to do.

That's the thing with Clarkson, he's not a star with an overall above average skill set, and he's not really really good at anything you'd want your role players to focus on. Players like that are hard to give significant minutes to.

He's really just to a stop gap, a player you bring off the bench that you hope will keep you in it.

My larger point is that we really don't have any "solid" NBA starters after Lopez. We have Lopez, a couple guys with potential, 3 rookies, 2 former D leaguers, and a few vets. All we have is "serviceable" starters after Lopez. Clarkson may be the best scorer we have on the entire team at the moment who is a front court player. Not saying it's a good thing but it's sure a thing.

That said, I've always thought the criticisms on Clarkson are what he isn't while not looking at what he is. If we change things up a little and play off Lopez the right way he may be able to get to the hoop easier which is when he's the most effective. If he can overcome a few of his issues his value rises.

dockingsched wrote:

Landsberger wrote:Who would be left at guard? Clarkson is serviceable as a starter and unless we're just dumping him it would seem that he'd have more value at the deadline if a team got an injury. The lack of guards would mean Ball would be playing big minutes from the start. I'm not sure that's ever a good idea with a youngster at this level.

I think he's got improvement left in him on a solid team. Judging youngsters on rosters filled with youngsters is difficult. If we're selling on him, why not wait unless this is a trade for George or another star level player?

No he's not a serviceable starter. He's not a good shooter, he's not good at moving off the ball, he's not a good defender, and he's not a particularly good distributor. Role players that surround your stars need to be really good at the one or two things they're asked to do.

That's the thing with Clarkson, he's not a star with an overall above average skill set, and he's not really really good at anything you'd want your role players to focus on. Players like that are hard to give significant minutes to.

He's really just to a stop gap, a player you bring off the bench that you hope will keep you in it.

Hold on. Wait. What you're saying about Clarkson is totally out of bounds. In case most people forgot, JC garnered 1st team All Rookie, in his first year. He put up impressive numbers, while showing a fearlessness at attacking the basket. The thing is, he hasn't improved since then. But, that's not a bad thing. Clarkson is absolutely a quality player. Just not a star.

During this last season, JC was one of the few guys who ALWAYS gave max effort. Granted his defense was mediocre, and his offensive awareness left much to be desired. But, he always gave you consistent effort, and was very good in his role as a scorer. JC is who he is.

If you don't like his game, fine. But, don't engage in coloring him as some sort of failed cast off. For all his effort as a Laker, he deserves better from us fans.


ZOOM!!!!!!!!!

I think he was probably told by his agent he was getting traded for PG... He's probably not sure what to think now.

I'm not sure we have enough to get PG now that the draft's over. So we might have to wait for him to become a free agent if we want him.

Trade him and we have a ton of cap space for 2 max free agents.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!