Clarkson and Randle Thread

[stan francisco]

The whole idea of trading a player who puts up 29/15/6 in a game, for picks, is insane.

I think we want good players here now, not projects. This is what tanking does. "He put up 40/20/10 si that should give us at least two picks." What? No, let's keep him instead.

Unless you know if a puck that'll guarantee 30/16/7...

[ROballer]

I guess we should've traded Kobe for Tony Delk back in the day, I mean he did score 52 in ONE game.

Randle had better games than his 29/15/6 game during his first 2 years, triple doubles included, and 95% of the board still wanted him traded.


Gauging the value of a player and the necessity of him being traded or not(when you consider our cap space scenario and possible plans of adding 2 MAX FA, Randle getting traded being a NECESSITY for this to occur), while posting the stat line of a single game, has to be one of the most (Please Use More Appropriate Word) things I have seen around here.

Right after "Unless you know if a puck that'll guarantee 30/16/7" . This has to be number one.

[stan francisco]

I guess we should've traded Kobe for Tony Delk back in the day, I mean he did score 52 in ONE game.

Randle had better games than his 29/15/6 game during his first 2 years, triple doubles included, and 95% of the board still wanted him traded.


Gauging the value of a player and the necessity of him being traded or not(when you consider our cap space scenario and possible plans of adding 2 MAX FA, Randle getting traded being a NECESSITY for this to occur), while posting the stat line of a single game, has to be one of the most (Please Use More Appropriate Word) things I have seen around here.

Right after "Unless you know if a puck that'll guarantee 30/16/7" . This has to be number one.

So, after Kobe put up 81 we could've got 5 lottery picks for him? See the logic changing as Randle is playing better? I was trying to make a point.

Point being, Randle is playing well lately, maybe so much so that we should stop looking much further. The fans seem to want to trade him despite what he does on the floor because, it's old Laker board habit (?) and let's not change our minds when wrong.

We don't have to trade him. His consistency (not one game of 29/15/6) is much better this season than any other.

We have to at some point snap out of tanking mode and stop trading our best trading assets. If he did indeed improve enough to keep, keep him. He's earned it.

As a starting C, he'd put up 18/10/4 every night with defense. For now, I'd take that over Lopez every day of the week. Compare him to other bigs in their true second season. I'm not trading him just yet.


Edit- All I'm really saying is, before we trade him for picks and high hopes for the future, let's first make sure this is not a fluke—his recent play. If this is the player he is consistently gonna be going forward (20/10/5?) let's think carefully and reassess why we're trading him for picks.

[Mr B]

The way Randle has been playing I don’t see how we don’t get a 1st round pick for him. Hell he might be worth a lottery pick right now but I ain’t picky. I see Clarkson as a straight swap for an expiring contract and maybe a minor asset coming back.

Again it comes down to leverage. The Lakers don’t have much. Everyone knows they are going to renounce his rights. So why would a team give up a 1st round pick for a guy they can just sign in the off season?

[dockingsched]

The way Randle has been playing I don’t see how we don’t get a 1st round pick for him. Hell he might be worth a lottery pick right now but I ain’t picky. I see Clarkson as a straight swap for an expiring contract and maybe a minor asset coming back.

Again it comes down to leverage. The Lakers don’t have much. Everyone knows they are going to renounce his rights. So why would a team give up a 1st round pick for a guy they can just sign in the off season?

The answer to that is pretty easy. A team with an expiring who isn’t going to have cap space might be willing to do it to retain Randle’s bird rights in order to keep him long term.

I’m addition, a team who wants to get him on the cheapest deal possible might be willing to do it to retain his restricted FA rights and discourage other suitors.

An added an advantage for this hypothetical team is that it affords them the ability to play around with their cap due to having Randle on a cap hold that would count for a lot less than they can eventually sign him for.

Really the question isn’t why a team would do it, it’s what teams fit the profile.

[stan francisco]

Clarkson on the other hand, still needs to start playing defense and stop copying Monta Ellis on offense or he should be sent out ASAP for a pick in a package with Lopez' expiring.

[Pointgod]

The way Randle has been playing I don’t see how we don’t get a 1st round pick for him. Hell he might be worth a lottery pick right now but I ain’t picky. I see Clarkson as a straight swap for an expiring contract and maybe a minor asset coming back.

Again it comes down to leverage. The Lakers don’t have much. Everyone knows they are going to renounce his rights. So why would a team give up a 1st round pick for a guy they can just sign in the off season?

Well you’re assuming that a team could just sign him outright. For any team over or close to the cap trading for Randle is the only way to get him. Next year’s free agency money will be slim. There aren’t a lot of teams that have capspace. Trading for Randle and retaining his bird rights is a better strategy than taking the chance that the Lakers don’t sign him and another team doesn’t offer him a bigger deal. You mean to tell me that a team is the Nets wouldn’t trade their Raptors pick for Randle? He could help them now and in the future.

[BBBKobe]

Clarkson on the other hand, still needs to start playing defense and stop copying Monta Ellis on offense or he should be sent out ASAP for a pick in a package with Lopez' expiring.

No one is taking Brook Lopez, he's almost Roy Hibbert bad.

[danfantastk32]

Edit- All I'm really saying is, before we trade him for picks and high hopes for the future, let's first make sure this is not a fluke—his recent play. If this is the player he is consistently gonna be going forward (20/10/5?) let's think carefully and reassess why we're trading him for picks.

3 things:

A) He's 13.2 / 6.7 / 1.8 <---not 20/10/5. You can throw some butter on the stats, claiming he's doing it in less minutes, but it's 6 less minutes. Would he stay as efficient playing more minutes? Could you say he benefits from playing against the bench?

B) Randle is playing solid. But this is a contract year. His first contract year. This is his fault. He developed a habit of 'mailing in' some games in prior seasons. Makes me wonder how legit this new found gear in his motor is.

C) Does Randle fit what Luke wants this team to be? <--------this is really the only question that matters. Personally, I don't see a fit. That doesn't mean I don't think he's good. There's plenty about him that's worth keeping. But 3-4 years in....he's not developed into anything resembling a spread-4. Right or wrong (topic for another page) we're doing the whole "spread" thing. If you think Luke can make this guy fit, and fit well.....then by all means, fight for him. Otherwise....his talents are wasted here, which means so will his salary.

I'd prob rethink this whole "spread offense" thing, if I were the Lakers....but if they are not going to...then it only makes sense to move Randle.

[stan francisco]

Clarkson on the other hand, still needs to start playing defense and stop copying Monta Ellis on offense or he should be sent out ASAP for a pick in a package with Lopez' expiring.

No one is taking Brook Lopez, he's almost Roy Hibbert bad.

I didn't say anyone would want Bropez, neither that he's good. I've wanted him traded since before we signed him. He's trash.

I said his expiring.

I might be wrong, but if there is a team with a multi year signed center that really wants out and/or isn't working out for the team, they might want to shed that contract for a short term one that matches his salary. They would part ways with what to them might be a bad deal (M Gasol, N Noël..?) get that money off the books. The price they'd pay? Watching Bropez warming the pine for a few months for $9M. We might get a serviceable big or three for his expiring. Again, not for his abilities.

Let's make it less about if M Gasol or Noël is the right fit, because that's not what it's about as he could be traded for two players and a pick, for example.

But hey, he's s bad player alright. Worthless on defense if you ask me. And so, worthless. Always was. 7'1" and 1RPG? Worthless.

But his expiring packaged with JC should be explored right now.

[dockingsched]

You’re not going to find any teams that even have the ability to match that type of salary with contracts the lakers would take, so you can’t even get to part about duscussing matching value.

[stan francisco]

You’re not going to find any teams that even have the ability to match that type of salary with contracts the lakers would take, so you can’t even get to part about duscussing matching value.

M Gasol was pissed a few weeks back. It's not impossible that something blows up. A Davis is apparently "not frustrated", etc etc etc. Not saying either will happen nor that Gasol would be perfect for us (other than in the playoffs) but if there are players we could use on long deals that are not working out well, Bropez' expiring should be on the table for every such trade proposal.

But hey, let's keep him for absolutely no reason at all.

[stan francisco]

The real point with shedding his expiring would be that it's an opportunity to get better and so I don't see why we should not explore it with teams who have had a situation gone bad...

[dockingsched]

Marc Gasol and Anthony Davis aren’t really trades about “shedding Lopez’ expiring”. Those targets would be about a lot more than Lopez’ dea. They aren’t relevant in a discussion about exploring possible Lopez trades.

At that point you’re talking about changing course away from the current young core.

[larry14r]

The real point with shedding his expiring would be that it's an opportunity to get better and so I don't see why we should not explore it with teams who have had a situation gone bad...

Because we don't want to take on any long term deals. The only thing we should do now is nothing and just let Lopez expire.

[stan francisco]

The real point with shedding his expiring would be that it's an opportunity to get better and so I don't see why we should not explore it with teams who have had a situation gone bad...

Because we don't want to take on any long term deals. The only thing we should do now is nothing and just let Lopez expire.

We look pretty good for next season with just staying pat, I agree.

So if there is, let's say a two- and a one-year deal for two disgruntled young promising studs that another team gave up on, you wouldn't listen because it would probably be a bad offer?

Whiteside is a UFA in 2019, right? I'm fine doing little or nothing with the 2018 FA class. GSW will still dominate in 2018-19 so I agree, I wouldn't rush into any bad long term deals either.

[stan francisco]

Marc Gasol and Anthony Davis aren’t really trades about “shedding Lopez’ expiring”. Those targets would be about a lot more than Lopez’ dea. They aren’t relevant in a discussion about exploring possible Lopez trades.

At that point you’re talking about changing course away from the current young core.

Ok. I'm gonna try once more to explain what I mean. I don't think we will get M Gasol straight up for Lopez expiring. Here's what I mean:

If a big contract player or players (any position, any name, any level of probability, any degree of good fit, from any team) wanted out before TD, we should dangle his expiring.

[dockingsched]

Marc Gasol and Anthony Davis aren’t really trades about “shedding Lopez’ expiring”. Those targets would be about a lot more than Lopez’ dea. They aren’t relevant in a discussion about exploring possible Lopez trades.

At that point you’re talking about changing course away from the current young core.

Ok. I'm gonna try once more to explain what I mean. I don't think we will get M Gasol straight up for Lopez expiring. Here's what I mean:

If a big contract player or players (any position, any name, any level of probability, any degree of good fit, from any team) wanted out before TD, we should dangle his expiring.

“Dangle” his expiring implies that’s the asset the other team is interested in. What examples do you have of such trades where the lakers are prepared to throw away 2018 cap if it means taking on a multi year deal?

[BBBKobe]

Clarkson on the other hand, still needs to start playing defense and stop copying Monta Ellis on offense or he should be sent out ASAP for a pick in a package with Lopez' expiring.

No one is taking Brook Lopez, he's almost Roy Hibbert bad.

I didn't say anyone would want Bropez, neither that he's good. I've wanted him traded since before we signed him. He's trash.

I said his expiring.

I might be wrong, but if there is a team with a multi year signed center that really wants out and/or isn't working out for the team, they might want to shed that contract for a short term one that matches his salary. They would part ways with what to them might be a bad deal (M Gasol, N Noël..?) get that money off the books. The price they'd pay? Watching Bropez warming the pine for a few months for $9M. We might get a serviceable big or three for his expiring. Again, not for his abilities.

Let's make it less about if M Gasol or Noël is the right fit, because that's not what it's about as he could be traded for two players and a pick, for example.

But hey, he's s bad player alright. Worthless on defense if you ask me. And so, worthless. Always was. 7'1" and 1RPG? Worthless.

But his expiring packaged with JC should be explored right now.

I don't know any teams that can take on 36 million and send us back expiring contracts just like that. It wouldn't even be worth trading for Gasol, he's been having a rough year frankly. Plus, he's on contract next year and I don't think he's someone to include in our core.

Bench Lopez here in a couple weeks. Magic will have to accept that his idea of a good trade was MOSTLY a failure.

How about this trade?
http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=y7uvbbfu


Wolves : Randle + Clarkson
Lakers : Bjelica + Cole + 2018 OKC 1st

Wolves - Go all in for a title run this year and next year. Yes they will have to pay some huge luxury dollars next year, but this might be their time to do it.

Lakers - Find value with a late 1st like previous years, open cap space for this summer. Lakers would waive both this summer, Cole only has 3 million guaranteed next year.

[stan francisco]

I didn't say there is such a situation. What I'm trying to say is that Lopez' expiring should be considered an asset around TD.

I respectfully disagree about Randle. He has shown me that he can play at a level where we might be total idiots if we don't keep him. I want to see him do it consistently for a stretch now before I'm convinced but I'd say he's almost there. Once Lonzo comes back, all will get easier for Randle. It's coming together for him.

Ball, Hart, Ingram, Kuzma, Randle.

Lopez expires, stretch Deng, trade JC. Sign LBJ. Done. Boring but great.

To make sure we do all we can, let's explore if there is an expiring for an expiring, try a swap on a high risk high reward player that's 14.9% cheaper than Lopez. I just don't see why we shouldn't try.