Best offers for Julius Randle and/or Jordan Clarkson?

[Spens1]

From the Bucks, given that i think Clarkson could be a fit at P.G, would it be ridiculous to ask for 17th for him?

Clarkson-Middleton-Parker-Giannis-Maker

Long term i think that has a lot of potential. Clarkson is a good secondary ball handler, had an off season but i think he is a natural fit. Has defensive potential also.

[Karmaloop]

It really depends on how much they like Randle, and what the offers for him really are. If they don't see him fitting in as a long-term starter* and they get a decent trade offer (preferably something 2018 cap space friendly) then they could trade him. If part of their long-term plan involves Randle as a starter or they're getting no offers of value then they don't trade him.

* I'm sure they're saying very positive things about Randle to the press/public, but that just means that they're not stupidly driving down his value.

Lakers aren't really in a position where they can afford to shed talent, so unless they're convinced he's going to regress to '15-'16 campaign there's no reason to believe they aren't high on him. They might not see him as a franchise talent, but there's no reason to believe that he couldn't be a #3 on a championship team. But let's go back to the whole concept of moving Randle, what motivation is there to move him from the Lakers' perspective? They're not shedding a big salary with him in this assumption, they're not getting overwhelming value for him, and they don't view him as a toxic contract/personality. There's no real reason for the Lakers to deal him.

[hoosierdaddy34]

It really depends on how much they like Randle, and what the offers for him really are. If they don't see him fitting in as a long-term starter* and they get a decent trade offer (preferably something 2018 cap space friendly) then they could trade him. If part of their long-term plan involves Randle as a starter or they're getting no offers of value then they don't trade him.

* I'm sure they're saying very positive things about Randle to the press/public, but that just means that they're not stupidly driving down his value.

Lakers aren't really in a position where they can afford to shed talent, so unless they're convinced he's going to regress to '15-'16 campaign there's no reason to believe they aren't high on him. They might not see him as a franchise talent, but there's no reason to believe that he couldn't be a #3 on a championship team. But let's go back to the whole concept of moving Randle, what motivation is there to move him from the Lakers' perspective? They're not shedding a big salary with him in this assumption, they're not getting overwhelming value for him, and they don't view him as a toxic contract/personality. There's no real reason for the Lakers to deal him.

Bingo. I don't think there is a question Randle is a starter in this league. The only reason LA has to deal him is out of fear that a Brooklyn or a Dallas come in and offer him a max deal as a RFA. They may not be inclined to pay him that much of the cap. But short of that, if they have assurances from his agent that he is willing to sign a manageable contract to stay? There is no pressure to trade him.

[FNQ]

I'd use them to dump Mozgov and Deng. Green Font and oh so tired of that idea.

Unfortunately, that's probably the only way Julius Randle gets traded. Let me ask you this (and others can answer as well), what motivation do the Lakers have to move Julius Randle? He's not set to become a FA until after next season, and his cap hold is a bit under $10.5M. Right now, the Lakers have roughly $82M in committed salaries for the 2018-19 season so you're looking at around $21M in cap space. Obviously, not enough to sign Paul George outright but not enough where they're forced to move Julius Randle. So why would the Lakers move a player they like for 50 cents on the dollar?

- recouping value on a #7 pick, that will steadily lose value as the offseason and 17-18 season progress barring a sharp uptick in production/impact
- not being the team to give him a large contract
- clearing the way for a cheaper, quite possibly better, player in Larry Nance Jr

I mean you can take PG13 out of the equation entirely and it still makes a lot of sense. Randle's lack of efficiency (OK 2pt shooter, doesnt contribute meaningfully from 3, doesnt get to the line) and lack of defense make him a tough sell as a potential quality starter. But ultimately the elephant in the room is his next contract, and if he's still riding the hype wave from college. If the Lakers can get him to agree to a reasonable extension - I think the 10-12m range is where I'd be comfortable - then by all means, keep him. Because if he tops out as a big off the bench type playing 20mpg, that salary is fitting. But if/when he starts getting into the Deng/Mozgov 16-18m/year + range, you are paying a starter, and I think I'd rather go forward with Nance Jr, who's garbageman style and defensive effort seems more impactful.

[warren weel im]

Some people stay the same, hope for a miracle... some people, do something about it. Excited to see what more he can do.

[TTP]

What would your team offer for either/or both? Listening to all offers.

Preferably a future late 1st for either or a pick in the mid-teens for both. Also would be interested in players on rookie contract.

id need a pick to take on either of them individually or as a package given randle needs to get paid.

othe then that nicholson and booker for clarkson maybe?

You think the Lakers should be dumping a pick to get rid of Randle? That makes no sense - they could just not match and let him walk for free. He's surely an asset on his 1 year, 4 milion this year (plus RFA option and bird rights).

[TTP]

From the Bucks, given that i think Clarkson could be a fit at P.G, would it be ridiculous to ask for 17th for him?

Clarkson-Middleton-Parker-Giannis-Maker

Long term i think that has a lot of potential. Clarkson is a good secondary ball handler, had an off season but i think he is a natural fit. Has defensive potential also.

Yeah that would be ridiculous. I think Clarkson is probably a negative asset right now on that contract given that he had a poor year after signing it. If he was priced at market value when signing the deal and follows it up with a poor year of performance, you would logically assume that his value is now below his price, thus a negative contract.

[TTP]

It really depends on how much they like Randle, and what the offers for him really are. If they don't see him fitting in as a long-term starter* and they get a decent trade offer (preferably something 2018 cap space friendly) then they could trade him. If part of their long-term plan involves Randle as a starter or they're getting no offers of value then they don't trade him.

* I'm sure they're saying very positive things about Randle to the press/public, but that just means that they're not stupidly driving down his value.

Lakers aren't really in a position where they can afford to shed talent, so unless they're convinced he's going to regress to '15-'16 campaign there's no reason to believe they aren't high on him. They might not see him as a franchise talent, but there's no reason to believe that he couldn't be a #3 on a championship team. But let's go back to the whole concept of moving Randle, what motivation is there to move him from the Lakers' perspective? They're not shedding a big salary with him in this assumption, they're not getting overwhelming value for him, and they don't view him as a toxic contract/personality. There's no real reason for the Lakers to deal him.

Bingo. I don't think there is a question Randle is a starter in this league. The only reason LA has to deal him is out of fear that a Brooklyn or a Dallas come in and offer him a max deal as a RFA. They may not be inclined to pay him that much of the cap. But short of that, if they have assurances from his agent that he is willing to sign a manageable contract to stay? There is no pressure to trade him.

I think the bolded is very much in question in the modern NBA where Randle's skillset is becoming increasingly marginalized. This is what could drive the desire to move him. I disagree that he has the upside to be the #3 on a championship team and I would not want my team to lock him up to a big deal in RFA.

[Resistance]

From the Bucks, given that i think Clarkson could be a fit at P.G, would it be ridiculous to ask for 17th for him?

Clarkson-Middleton-Parker-Giannis-Maker

Long term i think that has a lot of potential. Clarkson is a good secondary ball handler, had an off season but i think he is a natural fit. Has defensive potential also.

Yeah that would be ridiculous. I think Clarkson is probably a negative asset right now on that contract given that he had a poor year after signing it. If he was priced at market value when signing the deal and follows it up with a poor year of performance, you would logically assume that his value is now below his price, thus a negative contract.

We have similar sentiments about Clarkson. I think if they are able to move him for expiring salary, then they should take that route. Just get out alive from that contract and don't try to be greedy by asking for picks or similar assets.

[Karmaloop]

- recouping value on a #7 pick, that will steadily lose value as the offseason and 17-18 season progress barring a sharp uptick in production/impact
- not being the team to give him a large contract
- clearing the way for a cheaper, quite possibly better, player in Larry Nance Jr

I mean you can take PG13 out of the equation entirely and it still makes a lot of sense. Randle's lack of efficiency (OK 2pt shooter, doesnt contribute meaningfully from 3, doesnt get to the line) and lack of defense make him a tough sell as a potential quality starter. But ultimately the elephant in the room is his next contract, and if he's still riding the hype wave from college. If the Lakers can get him to agree to a reasonable extension - I think the 10-12m range is where I'd be comfortable - then by all means, keep him. Because if he tops out as a big off the bench type playing 20mpg, that salary is fitting. But if/when he starts getting into the Deng/Mozgov 16-18m/year + range, you are paying a starter, and I think I'd rather go forward with Nance Jr, who's garbageman style and defensive effort seems more impactful.

Can we please stop regurgitating facts that aren't accurate? Shooting 51% from inside the arc, and 65% within 3 feet isn't just "ok" it's good. You don't have to have a team full of 3 point shooters, despite what the Warriors are doing with their lineup. And the doesn't get to the FT line is again just completely inaccurate since he's T-7th in FTA per game among PF with Kristaps Porzingis and LaMarcus Aldridge at 3.8 FTA per game. And I believe of the top 10 PF in terms of FTA per game, only Nikola Jokic averages less MPG.

And no, there's no reason Julius Randle should even come close to considering that kind of extension. That would be insulting to him. And it affects the Lakers ability to be significant free agents next offseason, Paul George or not. If you want to roll with a less talented LNJ (and that's not a knock on him), go right ahead. But if you think $10M-$12M gets a deal done, you are completely behind on the contract evaluation.

[NoZoLakers]

what is this on going sentiment about Randle not being a Modern PF? Do you guys think he's a Zbo who just camps in the paint all day waiting to post up? Randle is a terrible post player, and while his 3pt fg% suck at he least hes capable n willing, you gota start somewhere.

[FNQ]

- recouping value on a #7 pick, that will steadily lose value as the offseason and 17-18 season progress barring a sharp uptick in production/impact
- not being the team to give him a large contract
- clearing the way for a cheaper, quite possibly better, player in Larry Nance Jr

I mean you can take PG13 out of the equation entirely and it still makes a lot of sense. Randle's lack of efficiency (OK 2pt shooter, doesnt contribute meaningfully from 3, doesnt get to the line) and lack of defense make him a tough sell as a potential quality starter. But ultimately the elephant in the room is his next contract, and if he's still riding the hype wave from college. If the Lakers can get him to agree to a reasonable extension - I think the 10-12m range is where I'd be comfortable - then by all means, keep him. Because if he tops out as a big off the bench type playing 20mpg, that salary is fitting. But if/when he starts getting into the Deng/Mozgov 16-18m/year + range, you are paying a starter, and I think I'd rather go forward with Nance Jr, who's garbageman style and defensive effort seems more impactful.

Can we please stop regurgitating facts that aren't accurate? Shooting 51% from inside the arc, and 65% within 3 feet isn't just "ok" it's good. You don't have to have a team full of 3 point shooters, despite what the Warriors are doing with their lineup. And the doesn't get to the FT line is again just completely inaccurate since he's T-7th in FTA per game among PF with Kristaps Porzingis and LaMarcus Aldridge at 3.8 FTA per game. And I believe of the top 10 PF in terms of FTA per game, only Nikola Jokic averages less MPG.

And no, there's no reason Julius Randle should even come close to considering that kind of extension. That would be insulting to him. And it affects the Lakers ability to be significant free agents next offseason, Paul George or not. If you want to roll with a less talented LNJ (and that's not a knock on him), go right ahead. But if you think $10M-$12M gets a deal done, you are completely behind on the contract evaluation.

First off, these are opinions. And if you dont like one of them, you can feel free to ignore it or dispute it. That's how the board works. ANd that's great that he shoots 50% inside the arc - because he shoots 37% eFG on jumpers (35% on 2 pt jumpers) and they account for 4 out of every 10 of his shots. That's low efficiency. Ditto his TS, which is at 54% now as a 3rd option - at best. Unlikely it gets better with more volume. So no, I don't consider that good.

What he ranks per position means extremely little. Have a guy who gets 2 OReb/gm and only manages 4 FT per game. I reference that because he clearly isn't going to provide value as a defender, so his value needs to come in terms of helping the team rebound and scoring. He does help with rebounding, but he looks to be a mediocre offensive option at best.

I dont think 10-12m is what he'll get, which is why I dont think he has much value. I said that's what I'd feel comfortable giving him; it's written as clear as can be above. He's coasting off name-hype and will likely get more. So I think Nance Jr, who is not only an effective rebounder but also an effective defender, would cost less and be easier to fit into a winning team than an average-efficiency poor defender like Randle.

[Kupchak9]

Gonna give this a shameless bump. Would like to see some new ideas, if any.

[Dr Aki]

Thou committeth thread necromancy

On topic, their values ain't rising without some play to back up the asking prices

[Rapsfan07]

I wouldn't mind Clarkson and Randle if we could make something work around Valanciunas and stuff

[JHFVF07]

I wouldn't mind Clarkson and Randle if we could make something work around Valanciunas and stuff

I would accept it(I like Val). Waive Deng(stretch), Then, we have Ball, Ingram, Nance, Valanciunas and 60M capspace(Lebron and PG13?).

[NoZoLakers]

I'd use them to dump Mozgov and Deng. Green Font and oh so tired of that idea.

Unfortunately, that's probably the only way Julius Randle gets traded. Let me ask you this (and others can answer as well), what motivation do the Lakers have to move Julius Randle? He's not set to become a FA until after next season, and his cap hold is a bit under $10.5M. Right now, the Lakers have roughly $82M in committed salaries for the 2018-19 season so you're U shouodve at around $21M in cap space. Obviously, not enough to sign Paul George outright but not enough where they're forced to move Julius Randle. So why would the Lakers move a player they like for 50 cents on the dollar?

- recouping value on a #7 pick, that will steadily lose value as the offseason and 17-18 season progress barring a sharp uptick in production/impact
- not being the team to give him a large contract
- clearing the way for a cheaper, quite possibly better, player in Larry Nance Jr

I mean you can take PG13 out of the equation entirely and it still makes a lot of sense. Randle's lack of efficiency (OK 2pt shooter, doesnt contribute meaningfully from 3, doesnt get to the line) and lack of defense make him a tough sell as a potential quality starter. But ultimately the elephant in the room is his next contract, and if he's still riding the hype wave from college. If the Lakers can get him to agree to a reasonable extension - I think the 10-12m range is where I'd be comfortable - then by all means, keep him. Because if he tops out as a big off the bench type playing 20mpg, that salary is fitting. But if/when he starts getting into the Deng/Mozgov 16-18m/year + range, you are paying a starter, and I think I'd rather go forward with Nance Jr, who's garbageman style and defensive effort seems more impactful.

Nance is NOT better than Randle, just a general Randle hate bias and apparently no one seems to notice how ijury prone nance has been even as a bench player

[FNQ]

Unfortunately, that's probably the only way Julius Randle gets traded. Let me ask you this (and others can answer as well), what motivation do the Lakers have to move Julius Randle? He's not set to become a FA until after next season, and his cap hold is a bit under $10.5M. Right now, the Lakers have roughly $82M in committed salaries for the 2018-19 season so you're U shouodve at around $21M in cap space. Obviously, not enough to sign Paul George outright but not enough where they're forced to move Julius Randle. So why would the Lakers move a player they like for 50 cents on the dollar?

- recouping value on a #7 pick, that will steadily lose value as the offseason and 17-18 season progress barring a sharp uptick in production/impact
- not being the team to give him a large contract
- clearing the way for a cheaper, quite possibly better, player in Larry Nance Jr

I mean you can take PG13 out of the equation entirely and it still makes a lot of sense. Randle's lack of efficiency (OK 2pt shooter, doesnt contribute meaningfully from 3, doesnt get to the line) and lack of defense make him a tough sell as a potential quality starter. But ultimately the elephant in the room is his next contract, and if he's still riding the hype wave from college. If the Lakers can get him to agree to a reasonable extension - I think the 10-12m range is where I'd be comfortable - then by all means, keep him. Because if he tops out as a big off the bench type playing 20mpg, that salary is fitting. But if/when he starts getting into the Deng/Mozgov 16-18m/year + range, you are paying a starter, and I think I'd rather go forward with Nance Jr, who's garbageman style and defensive effort seems more impactful.

Nance is NOT better than Randle, just a general Randle hate bias and apparently no one seems to notice how ijury prone nance has been even as a bench player

Randle's talent does not match up with his impact. Doesnt score very efficiently, doesnt improve the offense when he's on the court, and definitely doesnt help the defensive aspect. Nance doesnt offer the offensive upside but is a much better defender and is a slightly better rebounder.

At this point Randle is simply not a + impact player, but he has talent. Nance is more of a + impact player, but his ceiling is far more limited. If I wanted to win now, I'd take Nance over Randle 10 of 10 times. Because he's actually shown the ability to contribute consistently to winning, and Randle hasnt

Not sure what injuries have to do with being better though

[Kupchak9]

I wouldn't mind Clarkson and Randle if we could make something work around Valanciunas and stuff

I really like this idea. Jonas is young and is valuable in the right situation. Course the Lakers really just want capspace and a pick. Let's make this a 3 teamer.

TOR out: Jonas
TOR in: Randle, Clarkson

BRK out: Booker, Harris, TOR 2018 pick
BRK in: Jonas

LAL out: Randle, Clarkson
LAL in: Booker, Harris, TOR 2018 pick

TOR can run a smaller athletic lineup with Ibaka at the 5 and now have plenty of depth.
BRK really needs a big to build around. Jonas is only 25 and a huge upgrade at C. He's better than anyone they could potential get with the TOR pick.
LAL clears cap and gets another pick to use in the infamous Wade-Deng trade idea.

Thoughts everyone?

[Resistance]

I wouldn't mind Clarkson and Randle if we could make something work around Valanciunas and stuff

I really like this idea. Jonas is young and is valuable in the right situation. Course the Lakers really just want capspace and a pick. Let's make this a 3 teamer.

TOR out: Jonas
TOR in: Randle, Clarkson

BRK out: Booker, Harris, TOR 2018 pick
BRK in: Jonas

LAL out: Randle, Clarkson
LAL in: Booker, Harris, TOR 2018 pick

TOR can run a smaller athletic lineup with Ibaka at the 5 and now have plenty of depth.
BRK really needs a big to build around. Jonas is only 25 and a huge upgrade at C. He's better than anyone they could potential get with the TOR pick.
LAL clears cap and gets another pick to use in the infamous Wade-Deng trade idea.

Thoughts everyone?

There are still multiple years left on Mozgov's contract, so I don't understand why the Nets would want to send out a first round pick for another center with several years left on his contract.

Jonas Valanciunas ($15,460,675 | $16,539,326 | $17,617,977 -- player option)

Timofey Mozgov ($15,280,000 | $16,000,000 | $16,720,000)


From what I have read on pro Lakers sites, there is some sentiment to lower the amount of salary allocated to the center position in future seasons. If the idea makes sense to reallocate salary away from the center position, why should the Nets be expected to do something that the Lakers (or at least their fans) want their own team not to do and send out a first round pick for that honor?