The #2 Pick

[ROballer]

I want Russell but I'm fine with Okafor either way ....not the type of guy who will bitch and moan about Okafor if we get him ,like others will do if we opt for Russell instead

Either way,I'll **** lose my mind if Randle/Okafor duo don't start from day one and average 30 mins a game.....you learn by playing,not rotting on the bench ,especially if dinosaurs like Boozer are the other options

I always was in favor of playing the best players available,regardless of experience ..... I could care less if we have veterans with 10+ yrs of experience on our roster ,and they are rookies (Randle basically is too).....they're better,they get to **** play and play a lot

[ALL HAIL]

Anyone, and I do me anyone, who spews the misguided rhetoric that "the league has changed to a guard-driven league", and uses said delusion to justify picking Russell over Okafor, simply put, just doesn't understand general principles of roster construction and the foundations of overall basketball knowledge.

It's ironic because many of the same people who hail Kupchak's basketball acumen, yelling from the highest hill, " in Mitch I trust," are the same ones who, misguidedly, preach about the dramatic manner in which the game has changed away from the importance of bigmen and low post play.

If you listen to the Cowherd interview above, you see that Kupchak, clearly, isn't drinking from the well of this new-age Kool-Aid frame of thought.

Thank God for gray-haired, wise, old men.

[Sedale Threatt]

Well, the league is more guard/perimeter driven now. That's pretty much indisputable. And the notion that you always prioritize the big is silly. (See Oden over Durant, or Thabeet over Harden, Curry, or Bogut over Paul, or Bowie over Jordan.) You should never, ever, ever be rigid in your thinking. If the Lakers honestly think Russell is the better player, they should take him. I can see extremely tantalizing things about both him and Okafor. Okafor seems like the safer pick, and I probably stick with him, but as long as we get an impact building block, I don't care.

[ALL HAIL]

Well, the league is more guard/perimeter driven now. That's pretty much indisputable. And the notion that you always prioritize the big is silly. (See Oden over Durant, or Thabeet over Harden, Curry, or Bogut over Paul, or Bowie over Jordan.) You should never, ever, ever be rigid in your thinking. If the Lakers honestly think Russell is the better player, they should take him. I can see extremely tantalizing things about both him and Okafor. Okafor seems like the safer pick, and I probably stick with him, but as long as we get an impact building block, I don't care.

100% agree. Very well said.

I'm referring to guys who, from my perspective at least, see Okafor and Russell as a near dead heat and use the argument, excusively, that it's a guard's league to justify taking Russell.

As Kupchak said, the league is quite trendy right now, but you will always need talented bigs -- always.

Oden was a good pick over Durant. He just got hurt -- over and over again.

Thabeet. His height and defensive capability was enticing, but even if Russell turns into Harden, Okafor will not be Thabeet. Okafor and Thabeet aren't on the same level as prospects. The gap in skill between Thabeet and Harden is ridiculously larger than Okafor and Russell.

Jordan and Paul are the greatest examples of big man myopia at the top of the draft. I never saw Bogut or Bowie in college, but I know both, especially Bowie, were highly touted.

Good post.

[kblo247]

Well, the league is more guard/perimeter driven now. That's pretty much indisputable. And the notion that you always prioritize the big is silly. (See Oden over Durant, or Thabeet over Harden, Curry, or Bogut over Paul, or Bowie over Jordan.) You should never, ever, ever be rigid in your thinking. If the Lakers honestly think Russell is the better player, they should take him. I can see extremely tantalizing things about both him and Okafor. Okafor seems like the safer pick, and I probably stick with him, but as long as we get an impact building block, I don't care.

100% agree. Very well said.

I'm referring to guys who, from my perspective at least, see Okafor and Russell as a near dead heat and use the argument, excusively, that it's a guard's league to justify taking Russell.

As Kupchak said, the league is quite trendy right now, but you will always need talented bigs -- always.

Oden was a good pick over Durant. He just got hurt -- over and over again.

Thabeet. His height and defensive capability was enticing, but even if Russell turns into Harden, Okafor will not be Thabeet. Okafor and Thabeet aren't on the same level as prospects. The gap in skill between Thabeet and Harden is ridiculously larger than Okafor and Russell.

Jordan and Paul are the greatest examples of big man myopia at the top of the draft. I never saw Bogut or Bowie in college, but I know both, especially Bowie, were highly touted.

Good post.

For what it's worth Shareed Abdur Rahim was picked over Kobe, Nash, Marbury, Ray, and Peja in 96. Hell Samaki Walker, Dampier, and Wright (rip) was picked over Kobe, Nash, and Peja lol and Kobe did work out for the clippers and warriors

[kblo247]

I'm going to say it like this.

It becomes a crap shoot if the lakers feel they have legit chances at Marc or Dragic. If they feel they can get Marc inked, go Russell, no regrets. If you know behind closed doors (Nash's and Hills agent) can lock Dragic down, go Okafor without any qualms.

I honestly think Russell and Muiday will be ready sooner than both bigs, haven't hid that, but I know Towns and Okafor have size, talent, and are assets because 7 footers are over valued in the league

[SD2042]

For all the so called comparisons, I think at the end of the day, Al Jefferson would love to be able to replicate Okafor's offensive efficiency. I somehow don't see prime Okafor struggling to shoot 50% from the field.

Perhaps not. Okafor will be drafted and will be on the main stage displaying his strengths and weaknesses. All he has to do to his strengths is to add on to his repertoire of skill sets. As for weaknesses, he will have to work on like anyone else if he expects to better himself by the time he arrives into his prime.

I love how guys keep chiming in on Okafor's weakness for defense.

Do they realize or think for a minute that he didn't have a back up at Duke ?

Do they realize without a back up that he was going to have to take plays off ?

Do they realize that in college ball help defense is non existent ?

In the NBA all he has to learn is how to show and recover on screen/roll and improve his speed from weak side to strong. I know he needs work but guys are starting to over exaggerate his defense.

Dude, even if he had a backup, his strengths/weaknesses would still be there regardless. Also, even if I chimed in on his defensive weaknesses, you may have missed the part that I said his defense is something he would have to improve on as his career goes along.

[kblo247]

I honestly think we buy cheap with Rondo, but this team would be crazy with Dragic, a 5-7 mil player, and a room exception. Dragic will likely age like Billips, Nash, and kidd playing his best ball near 30 and that could maximize these 3 kids (clarkson, Randle, and the big at 2) and Kobe.

There's also a idea that Marc could teach and make Randle tougher, cover some holes from Clarkson and Russell. He's not Hakeem but the way he passes and is well versed, I like it a lot. He can plus holes and help the D and O.

I like going after Marc or Dragic more than Love or Rondo, but I admit there's a chance the team could come up with Rondo and Love both this summer to go with our youth and with them having a gang of **** to prove

[kblo247]

Am I the only one who thinks Okafor and Randle could be like Lamar and Pau, maybe better since they are younger and Pau/LO were both near peak when they became a combo? I could see Randle & Towns as what Odom and Bynum were becoming before Pau was traded for.

In a perfect would I hope we find them a third big to rotate. Hibbert or Tyson would be nice, DJ would be a crazy get, and Love or Marc would be nice

[ALL HAIL]

I honestly think we buy cheap with Rondo, but this team would be crazy with Dragic, a 5-7 mil player, and a room exception. Dragic will likely age like Billips, Nash, and kidd playing his best ball near 30 and that could maximize these 3 kids (clarkson, Randle, and the big at 2) and Kobe.

There's also a idea that Marc could teach and make Randle tougher, cover some holes from Clarkson and Russell. He's not Hakeem but the way he passes and is well versed, I like it a lot. He can plus holes and help the D and O.

I like going after Marc or Dragic more than Love or Rondo, but I admit there's a chance the team could come up with Rondo and Love both this summer to go with our youth and with them having a gang of **** to prove

So how much is a "cheap Rondo" worth these days?

My price is 5 mill per year with a team option after year one and a player option after year two.

Whatever the numbers are, there MUST be a team option after the first year -- gotta keep him from having any real leverage if things go south.

[LAKESHOW]

Folks, lets not make this difficult here. Weve got 2 choices here. Real simple. Make no doubt about it. Minnesota will take one of those choices. Jim Buss...simply select the second choice. The easy button is on the desk at LAKER offices. Please press it, and we go home.

[kblo247]

I honestly think we buy cheap with Rondo, but this team would be crazy with Dragic, a 5-7 mil player, and a room exception. Dragic will likely age like Billips, Nash, and kidd playing his best ball near 30 and that could maximize these 3 kids (clarkson, Randle, and the big at 2) and Kobe.

There's also a idea that Marc could teach and make Randle tougher, cover some holes from Clarkson and Russell. He's not Hakeem but the way he passes and is well versed, I like it a lot. He can plus holes and help the D and O.

I like going after Marc or Dragic more than Love or Rondo, but I admit there's a chance the team could come up with Rondo and Love both this summer to go with our youth and with them having a gang of **** to prove

So how much is a "cheap Rondo" worth these days?

My price is 5 mill per year with a team option after year one and a player option after year two.

Whatever the numbers are, there MUST be a team option after the first year -- gotta keep him from having any real leverage if things go south.

Something like Nash or Hills deal. 7-9 per with an out seems reasonable just because A its a discount, and B it's not for max years which is 4. Start closer to 7 if its 3 years and closer to 8 for 2 years. 5 is an insult, it's a league where that 5 mil will be like a minimum contract soon, and taxes will eat his ass up in Cali as opposed to being in Boston; its just something you can't feasibly ignore as he's already going to be taking a paycut.

I mean honestly we have what 23.5mil? That means we leave ourselves 16mil or so and the room exception to add talent. I just personally think guys like Rondo and Hibbert could help implement a real Defensive mentality to this team. Scott can't teach defense, he can't coach it, his history shows that, but when he has guys who know how to play it as individuals he's smart enough to step back and let them do it ala Kenyon and Kidd or Tyson and Paul. Even with 16mil or so, that's enough to sign Deandre (not Marc or Aldridge, we will need closer to 18).

I'm a guy who thinks we can see several scenarios all hail

Draft Okafor/Towns

- Rondo and Love (assuming Cleveland wins) plus a Gerald Green for the room
- Rondo, Tobias (probably the easiest rfa to get), Ed (what's left of the cap), Booz (room)
- Hibbert (another guy taking a pay cut most likely) and Rondo with a room wing
- Dragic with a Tyson Chandler (getting a 7-9 per deal for multiple years)
- Dragic with Hill on a cheaper deal for more years since they share an agent
- Dragic, Carol, and one of Ed or Booz for the room to play behind the bigs

I just don't see a world where we don't go out our way to not have a veteran pg be it Dragic or rondo to brow beat and nourish these young bigs and make Clarkson compete to beat them. Fish, Fox, and Horry were all stripped of their starting spots at one point to compete for their own spots again. Kobe had to beat Eddie and Nick, as well as pass by Rice. Clarkson had a good close but it wasn't a full season, and they may want to see him react to being pushed for his role.

Draft Russell /Muiday

*** don't sleep on the possibility that they both may over impress in the workout, there's a hell of a chance they do. They think the world of themselves and push it to their limits every day. I think a big is a given, but I wouldn't bet against them walking in the gym in el Segundo and out working the bigs and getting the lakers to take them. This is a team that drafts and nurtures smalls, and buys/trades for proven bigs. Bynum was a reach and exception, he's not the norm. This team drafts Magic, Kobe, Worthy, Eddie, Nick, West, Goodrich, and even Fish. Then they buy Shaq, Pau, Dwight (it failed), Lamar, wilt, Kareem, and the like after they've proven themselves and that they belong in the league and can play in it. The Bynum, Divac, Campbell draft types they've made haven't panned out, so they may go with the age old formula ... draft the small they think has stud potential and buy a made big

- Sign Marc at 20 and pay a wing the room exception
- Sign LA to the 18 mil and get a wing with the rest of the cap and a room exception guy
- sign DJ at 17 mil per and then use the 6-7 mil left to pay a guy like green or carol or Afflalo

[crazyeights]

I'm going to say it like this.

It becomes a crap shoot if the lakers feel they have legit chances at Marc or Dragic. If they feel they can get Marc inked, go Russell, no regrets. If you know behind closed doors (Nash's and Hills agent) can lock Dragic down, go Okafor without any qualms.

Interestingly enough, Nash/Hill's agent is Bill Duffy, Okafor's.

A lot has been made about Duffy's connection to Minnesota (remember Hill nearly signed there a few years ago, but took less money to stay with LAL)...obviously Duffy was involved in that Nash deal, which is honestly why we're at this juncture.

College roomies are one thing, but having the Lakers's heir apparent spot WIDE OPEN, and having a number 2 pick, this has to be the most sought after 2nd pick ever. He'd be stupid to pick doing Flip a solid over the brand that could be made in LA.

Honestly if I'm Okafor and don't want to go to Minnesota, and Duffy's pushing it, I fire him right now.

[Mirjalovic]

It's easier to get bigmen in this draft then sign a marquee SF and probably cheap 1 year deal for Rondo
(Rondo or) Clarkson
Kobe
DeMare/Draymond/Danny/Jeff/Kahwi/LeBron James/Butler
Randle
Okafor

It's easier, and i believe Okafor is better prospect than Russell, and Mudiay probably still ahead of Russell.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[ALL HAIL]

Very dense post there blo.

Simply put, I agree that 5 mill would be an insult. You're absolutely right, but, you gotta admit, that's about his value right now (maybe less).

If no one gave a flip about "insulting" him, and he was to get his true market value, it'd be 5 mill or less for one year.

All that being said, I'd consider Rondo on a one year deal with options for your price range, maybe 6.5-7 mill.

To be fair blo, Rondo's going to be insulted no matter what. How do you think he'll feel about a one-year deal? He's going to have humble himself big time.

All that other stuff is a whole different discussion.

I can't imagine Dragic or Marc Gasol or DJ being available, let alone them making up their mind before draft day so the Lakers know which direction (big or small) to go in .

I think Love and Aldridge are bad ideas. With Randle and Okafor in tow, the Lakers simply need teachers, veteran guys who can teach and set a defensive standard. Hibbert and Chandler would qualify as such, but there's no need for Love and Aldridge.

[crazyeights]

Interesting interview by Mitch on Cowherd:

Listen here: http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=12926461

Referring to Colin asking about Rondo, Mitch said:

Now we also have the pick, which takes a little bit of the pressure off to do something borderline this summer."

Interesting and encouraging to refer to a Rondo signing as "borderline."

Colin asking him big or guard:

"We haven't worked anybody out, we haven't interviewed anybody, but clearly, at the top of the draft there are two bigs and we have the second pick."

If you listened to the entire interview, Mitch is saying there that we're essentially taking a big.

His thoughts on the changing landscape of the NBA:

"There is no doubt that the game that is being played today is very different than the game that was being played 8-10 years ago. It's the three point shot, the drive and kick...but the teams that have great success still have centers....so you still need size in this league. You need a rim protector, a guy to take space, a guy to run an offense through"

He noted the Spurs, Memphis, and GSW all have legit bigs . That last part about running your offense through sounds very much like Okafor.

Last he covered what sort of guard Clarkson is...

"I think you classify him as a ball handling guard and if there is a player who plays like him it's Russell Westbrook. Now I'm not saying for a second that Jordan Clarkson is the next Russell Westbrook, but he's that kind of a ball-handling guard, he looks to attack the rim, he's aggressive offensively, he's not gonna walk the ball up the court, make the entry pass, and cut through. He's gonna push the ball, look for a crack and try to get to the rim and make a play...but he's not your typical prototype ball-handling point guard."

A recap here: http://www.silverscreenandroll.com/2015/5/21/8642023/mitch-kupchak-on-the-draft-pick-free-agency-and-kobes-future

So, it sounds like we'll draft a big, look to be aggressive in FA, but not go out of our way to make borderline moves like Rondo*...maybe even if we strike out in FA, we have a little more wiggle room to not make a huge splash, now that we have the prospect of a young core to build around.


*This echoes something he said in back in February to Baxter Holmes:

“To jeopardize the next five or seven years … [by bringing] in old veterans that make a lot of money, just to win one more year, because that’s Kobe’s last year or could be his last year, I’m not sure that fits into doing it the right way.” …

“We’re going to look to do this the right way, which is to try to make prudent decisions about youth and veterans and making commitments to players under the existing rules. I’d love to be able to put together a young team that can win 55 games next year, but it’s not that easy. It’s just not that easy. It’s not off the table. It’s our goal, but we want to make sure we do it the right way.”

Pretty sure that vet was referring to Rondo as well, but as we all know Rondo played so poorly that he could very well be much cheaper than we'd originally thought.

I think Rondo/Kobe/_____/Randle/Okafor(Towns) would have huge spacing issues. Really it would be a nightmare because we don't have enough 3 point shooting, even if we got a 3D SF....To me Rondo doesn't help with Okafor, though he might help to spoon feed and develop Towns. (Towns would also help ease some of the spacing issues as he can shoot from the perimeter).

To me, if we do draft Okafor, it would allow us to really run our offense through him, meaning we could go for a 3D PG and SF and then have Randle play like Blake and Okafor play like Marc Gasol. Essentially each gives us different options and needs.

Okafor we need better spacing (though drawing doubles would also help spacing), and better defense, but he also lightens the load for the need to spend valuable cap room on a top flight distributor.

Towns helps with his perimeter play and defense, but will be slower to develop, thus we'd need more vets to help him there AND to stay somewhat relevant in the next few seasons. Either way, both of these guys under the Lakers direction, should have every opportunity to be a beast.

[LAKESHOW]

Rondo is simply out of the equation. The front office doesnt want him. And in todays game, it is too hard trying to HIDE a point guard. His fear of shooting the ball during games, totally sinks a defense, and frustrates fans and coaches. We need a pg who canrelieve inside pressure by canning an outside shot or 2. Rondo routinely shys away from shooting and packs the defense down onto our bigs.

[john248]

I love how guys keep chiming in on Okafor's weakness for defense.

Do they realize or think for a minute that he didn't have a back up at Duke ?

Do they realize without a back up that he was going to have to take plays off ?

Do they realize that in college ball help defense is non existent ?

In the NBA all he has to learn is how to show and recover on screen/roll and improve his speed from weak side to strong. I know he needs work but guys are starting to over exaggerate his defense.

Weird questions. 1st, Coach K is a great coach. In the beginning and even during the tournament, Okafor was getting exposed. It's the reason why he's not the consensus #1 pick anymore after being the man for much of the season. The opposing team would just run screens at him. If the opposing team had a big themselves who had some offense, well he did ok against Okafor too. This is why people harp on his defense because it is important for a big man. Coach K really had no choice but to have Okafor go under screens. So Coach K made a couple adjustments.

One adjustment he made was sliding Winslow to PF to cover for Okafor's glaring defensive weakness giving a more defensive line-up. The Lakers as of now don't have that NBA quality defensive big who can stay on the court for a long time that can play alongside Okafor. This can be addressed this season or in the next few seasons really to find that player. That type of player is tough to find though since you'd like that 4 to have at least a mid-range game with good defense which isn't too common in itself and is an expensive role player. The other adjustment was Duke playing zone more often.

Just as you feel people are over exaggerating his defensive troubles, you're just as guilty being on the other side and brushing it off. Anyone can list players that have below average lateral movement who are solid to even great defenders. But it's just as easy to list guys who are slow footed laterally who remain poor defenders. Then there are those who automatically assume and give Marc Gasol references just because they feel Okafor's high offensive IQ would mean a defensive IQ which is blatantly wrong.

Objectively, he'll continue to be a heavy footed guy on the defensive end so the climb to develop into a solid defender is tougher since he'll have to rely on using his head more than being also able to rely on athleticism. The positives that we can take are the kid is reported to be coachable, and even though I talk a bunch of trash about his defense, I think his value overall will negate that since I'm banking on his offense to be awesome and hoping that experience will at least improve his defensive positioning on the floor. I don't see him improving on help and recovering ever really or what I mean to say is improve on his lateral movement a ton. What he needs to improve on is reading the opoosing offsense to better his anticipation so he's in a better position to defend and box out. This last sentence is what i believe to be key on keeping him on the floor and limiting his liability on the defensive end.

I'm on board the Okafor bandwagon too. Buidling a team around him would be different than a no-offense with good defensive big + shooters that we see in the league today. We're likely looking at a team with a hole in the middle but excellent defenders on the perimeter which I feel is a legit way to build a championship team where we would just need a superstar offensive perimeter player too. Much of my thoughts hinges on Clarkson being consistently good or solid as a shooter/offensive player and an awesome wing player. It also hinges heavily on Okafor being really f-ing good on offense too.

[yoyoboy]

As an outsider from Cleveland, who's watched every game Russell has played this year, as well as most of Okafor's games this year (big Duke fans in my family), I think the Lakers would be best suited in taking D'Angelo Russell.

You will not be disappointed if you take Russell. He can shoot the lights out, score on the inside, pass as well as any 19 year old I've ever seen, rebound his position well, and he even has the potential to be a good defender with his combination of size/length and good instincts. Plus, he has that killer mentality that you want from a young player with superstar potential. I just can't see how you could go wrong with him.

On the other hand, Okafor is a one dimensional player who's a great scorer in the post and that's pretty much where it ends. In a league dominated by PGs where the PnR is abused to death, Okafor is always going to be a defensive liability. Nowadays, centers pretty much have to be good defenders to be effective and I don't see Jahlil being a good defender in the NBA due to his slow feet, underwhelming athleticism, and poor instincts. Heck, even low post scoring has died out due to the rising importance of guard play and the three point shot. Furthermore, if you guys intend to stick with Randle as your PF of the future, Okafor makes no sense next to him. Neither are particularly good defenders and both require the ball in the post to be effective. The spacing wouldn't be very good.

D'Angelo Russell seems to be the right choice for the Lakers and could really develop well under Kobe's wing.

[TyCobb]

/endbias