The Trade Thread: All Eyes Toward The Offseason

[TeamTragic]

Lakers fan in the Randle thread on the trade board suggested 13/28/Chandler for Randle.

Yay or nay? I'm thinking yay at this point...not a slam dunk, but he's 21, he's already averaging a double double, and we don't have any long-term prospects at PF. Plus we get out of Chandler's contract.

That extra pick(28) is kind of bothering me, but those late picks rarely pan out anyways, and at least this way you have a young guy you know is productive at the NBA level. Booker/Warren/Randle/Len is a nice young core.

No thanks. I would rather keep Chandler for his veteran presence and roll the dice with #13/#28.

[sunsbum]

I think its pretty fair to say Len had a down year but it was clear he was using the season to integrate some new tools. he's coming along and we cant get too impatient but this is now his 3rd year and I'd like to see him put it all together and take a nice step forward in terms of consistency at least. If we get an Alex Len that puts out a 10/9/1.5 on 50% shooting I will be more than happy.

[Cactus Jack]

Lakers fan in the Randle thread on the trade board suggested 13/28/Chandler for Randle.

Yay or nay? I'm thinking yay at this point...not a slam dunk, but he's 21, he's already averaging a double double, and we don't have any long-term prospects at PF. Plus we get out of Chandler's contract.

That extra pick(28) is kind of bothering me, but those late picks rarely pan out anyways, and at least this way you have a young guy you know is productive at the NBA level. Booker/Warren/Randle/Len is a nice young core.

No thanks. I would rather keep Chandler for his veteran presence and roll the dice with #13/#28.

Chandler/13/28 for Randle/32.

[rsavaj]

Lakers fan in the Randle thread on the trade board suggested 13/28/Chandler for Randle.

Yay or nay? I'm thinking yay at this point...not a slam dunk, but he's 21, he's already averaging a double double, and we don't have any long-term prospects at PF. Plus we get out of Chandler's contract.

That extra pick(28) is kind of bothering me, but those late picks rarely pan out anyways, and at least this way you have a young guy you know is productive at the NBA level. Booker/Warren/Randle/Len is a nice young core.

No thanks. I would rather keep Chandler for his veteran presence and roll the dice with #13/#28.

Swap 28 for 34.

I'd rather have 34 TBH. I know that 6 spots is not an insignificant difference but that 2nd rounder is gonna be on a non-guaranteed deal which is nice.

[Cactus Jack]

Lakers fan in the Randle thread on the trade board suggested 13/28/Chandler for Randle.

Yay or nay? I'm thinking yay at this point...not a slam dunk, but he's 21, he's already averaging a double double, and we don't have any long-term prospects at PF. Plus we get out of Chandler's contract.

That extra pick(28) is kind of bothering me, but those late picks rarely pan out anyways, and at least this way you have a young guy you know is productive at the NBA level. Booker/Warren/Randle/Len is a nice young core.

No thanks. I would rather keep Chandler for his veteran presence and roll the dice with #13/#28.

Chandler/13/28 for Randle/32.

Make the call.

[TeamTragic]

Lakers fan in the Randle thread on the trade board suggested 13/28/Chandler for Randle.

Yay or nay? I'm thinking yay at this point...not a slam dunk, but he's 21, he's already averaging a double double, and we don't have any long-term prospects at PF. Plus we get out of Chandler's contract.

That extra pick(28) is kind of bothering me, but those late picks rarely pan out anyways, and at least this way you have a young guy you know is productive at the NBA level. Booker/Warren/Randle/Len is a nice young core.

No thanks. I would rather keep Chandler for his veteran presence and roll the dice with #13/#28.

Swap 28 for 34 & I would think long and hard about it. Do the Lakers have a 2nd rounder? If so, Chandler/13/28 for Randle/32.

Nope. Not going to happen.

[saintEscaton]

Lakers fan in the Randle thread on the trade board suggested 13/28/Chandler for Randle.

Yay or nay? I'm thinking yay at this point...not a slam dunk, but he's 21, he's already averaging a double double, and we don't have any long-term prospects at PF. Plus we get out of Chandler's contract.

That extra pick(28) is kind of bothering me, but those late picks rarely pan out anyways, and at least this way you have a young guy you know is productive at the NBA level. Booker/Warren/Randle/Len is a nice young core.

Randle is basically Thomas Robinson 2.0 all he does is clash the glass and run in transition for easy jams. He has t-rex arms, is a turnstile on the other end and his bullyball style isn't effective in the NBA. Pass

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

No thanks. I would rather keep Chandler for his veteran presence and roll the dice with #13/#28.

Swap 28 for 34 & I would think long and hard about it. Do the Lakers have a 2nd rounder? If so, Chandler/13/28 for Randle/32.

Make the call.

Too many prospects in this draft whom I prefer to Randle.

You know, for a guy that apparently has negative value, I sure have seen a lot of fans from other teams propose a trade for Chandler.

[Cactus Jack]

No thanks. I would rather keep Chandler for his veteran presence and roll the dice with #13/#28.

Swap 28 for 34 & I would think long and hard about it. Do the Lakers have a 2nd rounder? If so, Chandler/13/28 for Randle/32.

Nope. Not going to happen.

You wouldn't consider moving Chandler + 13, 28 for Randle + 32? Randle is better than anything available at 13. Just to hang on to Chandler?

[Damkac]

Len was thrown in at the deep end with his extended minutes and offensive role. Playing big part of the year without reasonable point guard also didn't help. But it is too early to give up on him.
Seeing how popular "hack a..." strategy is those day it's very nice to have center who can hit >70% of his free throws.

[saintEscaton]

Swap 28 for 34 & I would think long and hard about it. Do the Lakers have a 2nd rounder? If so, Chandler/13/28 for Randle/32.

Nope. Not going to happen.

You wouldn't consider moving Chandler + 13, 28 for Randle + 32? Randle is better than anything available at 13. Just to hang on to Chandler?

I 'd rather have Davis, Chriss or even Sabonis. But getting rid of Chandler's deadweight corpse is quite enticing...

[bwgood77]

Lakers fan in the Randle thread on the trade board suggested 13/28/Chandler for Randle.

Yay or nay? I'm thinking yay at this point...not a slam dunk, but he's 21, he's already averaging a double double, and we don't have any long-term prospects at PF. Plus we get out of Chandler's contract.

That extra pick(28) is kind of bothering me, but those late picks rarely pan out anyways, and at least this way you have a young guy you know is productive at the NBA level. Booker/Warren/Randle/Len is a nice young core.

No thanks. Randle shot less than 43% overall this year. Not too good for a PF. And its not like he was attempting a lot of 3s either. He attempted 36 the entire year shooting under 28%.

[TeamTragic]

Nope. Not going to happen.

You wouldn't consider moving Chandler + 13, 28 for Randle + 32? Randle is better than anything available at 13. Just to hang on to Chandler?

I 'd rather have Davis, Chriss or even Sabonis. But getting rid of Chandler's deadweight corpse is quite enticing...

Why should we help the Lakers? Horrible trade.

Swap 28 for 34 & I would think long and hard about it. Do the Lakers have a 2nd rounder? If so, Chandler/13/28 for Randle/32.

Nope. Not going to happen.

You wouldn't consider moving Chandler + 13, 28 for Randle + 32? Randle is better than anything available at 13. Just to hang on to Chandler?

Randle is better than Valentine?

[bwgood77]

No thanks. I would rather keep Chandler for his veteran presence and roll the dice with #13/#28.

Swap 28 for 34.

I'd rather have 34 TBH. I know that 6 spots is not an insignificant difference but that 2nd rounder is gonna be on a non-guaranteed deal which is nice.

Not necessarily. It also gives them a chance to leave sooner if they perform well because you don't hold bird rights and might not be able to match an offer that another team gives them. Late picks in THIS draft are gold because they will be among the cheapest contracts in the league and you hold their rights for 4 (and really most likely 8). Also, with first rounders you have team option in the 3rd and 4th years.

[bwgood77]

Swap 28 for 34 & I would think long and hard about it. Do the Lakers have a 2nd rounder? If so, Chandler/13/28 for Randle/32.

Nope. Not going to happen.

You wouldn't consider moving Chandler + 13, 28 for Randle + 32? Randle is better than anything available at 13. Just to hang on to Chandler?

Have you paid attention to Randle? A PF that shoots under 43% from the field, and not because he is shooting a bunch of 3s or anything is not high on my priority list.

[Kerrsed]

Lakers fan in the Randle thread on the trade board suggested 13/28/Chandler for Randle.

Yay or nay? I'm thinking yay at this point...not a slam dunk, but he's 21, he's already averaging a double double, and we don't have any long-term prospects at PF. Plus we get out of Chandler's contract.

That extra pick(28) is kind of bothering me, but those late picks rarely pan out anyways, and at least this way you have a young guy you know is productive at the NBA level. Booker/Warren/Randle/Len is a nice young core.

I'd totally do it.

The #28 is really nothing. Its a throw in piece for trade. Its another guaranteed contract when usually the player doesnt pan out. Honestly, i could care less about the pick. Chandler has been here for a year, and besides providing a bit of "Veteran Leadership" he really hasnt done much else. It time for Len to sink or swim. Give him the starting 5 spot and as many minutes as he can play before fouling out. Granted we have about $30M in cap room with the new salary cap rising, but still, his $40M over the next 3 seasons is pretty bad.

As for the #13 pick, honestly, i think we would be ecstatic if we drafted someone and they put up the numbers that Randle did for what was essentially his rookie season that was also being shared with the Kobe Bryant Goodbye World Tour. Averaging a double-double is pretty good for a rookie. He even had a triple double game this season as well. Sure, he is a world class scorer yet, but IT WAS HIS ROOKIE SEASON!



Now honestly, i see some Amare in him. We are talking about early #32 Amare, before the number change and the "AND 1" yelling. The in the paint taking the rock to the hole Amare, not the nonchalant freethrow jumper Amare. Randle isnt the best defender, but he is decent, the kid just needs some time. And you also know that McD LOVES himself some Kentucky players!

So if we could draft a player like Randel at #13, i think we all would be excited as s**t, and here we might have the opportunity to do so at the cost of a semi-worthless #28 and Chandler. Do it McD, DO IT DO IT DO IT!

[Kerrsed]

Lakers fan in the Randle thread on the trade board suggested 13/28/Chandler for Randle.

Yay or nay? I'm thinking yay at this point...not a slam dunk, but he's 21, he's already averaging a double double, and we don't have any long-term prospects at PF. Plus we get out of Chandler's contract.

That extra pick(28) is kind of bothering me, but those late picks rarely pan out anyways, and at least this way you have a young guy you know is productive at the NBA level. Booker/Warren/Randle/Len is a nice young core.

Randle is basically Thomas Robinson 2.0 all he does is clash the glass and run in transition for easy jams. He has t-rex arms, is a turnstile on the other end and his bullyball style isn't effective in the NBA. Pass

Yet he has a longer wingspan than Blake Griffin (6'11.25), Kevin Love (6'11.25) and Thaddeus Young (6'11.5).

And is crashing the glass and running in transition a bad thing now?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6POgDFyGDMk[/youtube]

Looks like there was a lot more than just "Easy Jams" if you ask me.

[Cactus Jack]

You wouldn't consider moving Chandler + 13, 28 for Randle + 32? Randle is better than anything available at 13. Just to hang on to Chandler?

I 'd rather have Davis, Chriss or even Sabonis. But getting rid of Chandler's deadweight corpse is quite enticing...

Why should we help the Lakers? Horrible trade.

Nope. Not going to happen.

You wouldn't consider moving Chandler + 13, 28 for Randle + 32? Randle is better than anything available at 13. Just to hang on to Chandler?

Randle is better than Valentine?

Not a huge Valentine fan. Plus it would clear even more cap room. Randle isn't bad. Career double-double. Hasn't reached his potential yet. I don't see the Lakers doing it btw.

[saintEscaton]

Come on Kersed, Randle will become another long forgotten scrub you formerly loved like Terrance Williams and Perry Jones. The entire Lakers core are a overrated bunch of entitled pouty brats and that includes the “Swag Bros” or whatever the hell they call themselves. It’s a shame Ingram has to put up with their shenanigans

[RaisingArizona]

I'm with Kerrsed on this...