Official #1 pick thread

[Unbreakable99]

If I'm Lakers, I would offer no.2 and removal of pick protection for Simmons. I stated this before and it looked like majority thinks Simmons is a tier above Ingram.

I don't think Ingram would be ready to contribute much next season, so that pick of theirs would again be at risk. I also think big time FAs like KD (pipedream) or Derozan would be more likely to sign with them if they are playing with Simmons.

Simmons and DLo gives them a more certain future. General sentiment is DLo is still 50-50. Clarkson is more of a 2nd unit type player. Randle doesn't look like a potential star player.

Question is, if they offer us no.2 and removal of protection in 2017, will we accept it?

How about No.2 and DLo for No.1? Thinking there would be to knock down one domino block that can lead to other. Simmons gives them a face for the franchise. They can get secondary&tertiary star via FA or future picks. I do think Lakers is pressured right now to show their fans some progress with Kobe gimmick already done.

Dude give it up. Simmons is going to be a Sixer. Why do you insist on wanting to get a lesser player? This literally makes no sense...AT ALL. Simmons is the better prospect and you would seriously consider trading him to the Lakers for Ingram and a removal of pick protection? The lengths people will go to not want Simmons on this team is mind boggling. You don't tank for Ingram. We tanked for a star and that is Simmons. So to answer your question, hell no I would not do that awful trade. Yeah. Let's just give the Lakers the superstar they need to make their next run while we are stuck with a lesser prospect. Smh.

[Snotbubbles]

If I'm Lakers, I would offer no.2 and removal of pick protection for Simmons. I stated this before and it looked like majority thinks Simmons is a tier above Ingram.

I don't think Ingram would be ready to contribute much next season, so that pick of theirs would again be at risk. I also think big time FAs like KD (pipedream) or Derozan would be more likely to sign with them if they are playing with Simmons.

Simmons and DLo gives them a more certain future. General sentiment is DLo is still 50-50. Clarkson is more of a 2nd unit type player. Randle doesn't look like a potential star player.

Question is, if they offer us no.2 and removal of protection in 2017, will we accept it?

How about No.2 and DLo for No.1? Thinking there would be to knock down one domino block that can lead to other. Simmons gives them a face for the franchise. They can get secondary&tertiary star via FA or future picks. I do think Lakers is pressured right now to show their fans some progress with Kobe gimmick already done.

Dude give it up. Simmons is going to be a Sixer. Why do you insist on wanting to get a lesser player? This literally makes no sense...AT ALL. Simmons is the better prospect and you would seriously consider trading him to the Lakers for Ingram and a removal of pick protection? The lengths people will go to not want Simmons on this team is mind boggling. You don't tank for Ingram. We tanked for a star and that is Simmons. So to answer your question, hell no I would not do that awful trade. Yeah. Let's just give the Lakers the superstar they need to make their next run while we are stuck with a lesser prospect. Smh.

Haven't you heard, Ingram has elite wingspan.

[05PhillyAI]

Nothing wrong with opinions.

[Unbreakable99]

Nothing wrong with opinions.

That's correct but in the NBA you win with top talent. Teams with lesser talent have a tougher time competing. When you have a potential superstar right there you don't trade him for a lesser prospect even if they throw in another potentially pretty good player. One great player trumps two good players.

[PhilasFinest]

If I'm Lakers, I would offer no.2 and removal of pick protection for Simmons. I stated this before and it looked like majority thinks Simmons is a tier above Ingram.

I don't think Ingram would be ready to contribute much next season, so that pick of theirs would again be at risk. I also think big time FAs like KD (pipedream) or Derozan would be more likely to sign with them if they are playing with Simmons.

Simmons and DLo gives them a more certain future. General sentiment is DLo is still 50-50. Clarkson is more of a 2nd unit type player. Randle doesn't look like a potential star player.

Question is, if they offer us no.2 and removal of protection in 2017, will we accept it?

How about No.2 and DLo for No.1? Thinking there would be to knock down one domino block that can lead to other. Simmons gives them a face for the franchise. They can get secondary&tertiary star via FA or future picks. I do think Lakers is pressured right now to show their fans some progress with Kobe gimmick already done.

Think the Lakers FO are forced to spend money this off season with the impatient fan base. They won't be a PO team, but they will improve a bit if they get some decent perimeter defenders and a rim protector. So basically you are giving up #1 pick for #2 pick and a very minor chance of getting a top 3 pick next year.

Since you're rooting for Ingram I can get it, but personally I think Simmons is a better prospect, so this is a no-go for me.

Right now, i'm undecided.

Anyway, would a no.2 and DLO for Simmons deal be fair to you?

Id pass. We need a star caliber player, and in this class Simmons is that kid. Sure it would be tempting by adding 2 pieces for 1, but I'm still swinging for the home run and taking Simmons #1.

While Im a Russell fan, I'm not sure he showed me enough last year to essentially give up on Simmons for him, and the pick protection isn't worth the gamble as it could literally blow up in your face.


Simmons is the pick. We can figure the rest out later and/or move Noel/Okafor for a guard if we really are trying to fill a backcourt void immediately.

[Unbreakable99]

If I'm Lakers, I would offer no.2 and removal of pick protection for Simmons. I stated this before and it looked like majority thinks Simmons is a tier above Ingram.

I don't think Ingram would be ready to contribute much next season, so that pick of theirs would again be at risk. I also think big time FAs like KD (pipedream) or Derozan would be more likely to sign with them if they are playing with Simmons.

Simmons and DLo gives them a more certain future. General sentiment is DLo is still 50-50. Clarkson is more of a 2nd unit type player. Randle doesn't look like a potential star player.

Question is, if they offer us no.2 and removal of protection in 2017, will we accept it?

How about No.2 and DLo for No.1? Thinking there would be to knock down one domino block that can lead to other. Simmons gives them a face for the franchise. They can get secondary&tertiary star via FA or future picks. I do think Lakers is pressured right now to show their fans some progress with Kobe gimmick already done.

Dude give it up. Simmons is going to be a Sixer. Why do you insist on wanting to get a lesser player? This literally makes no sense...AT ALL. Simmons is the better prospect and you would seriously consider trading him to the Lakers for Ingram and a removal of pick protection? The lengths people will go to not want Simmons on this team is mind boggling. You don't tank for Ingram. We tanked for a star and that is Simmons. So to answer your question, hell no I would not do that awful trade. Yeah. Let's just give the Lakers the superstar they need to make their next run while we are stuck with a lesser prospect. Smh.

Haven't you heard, Ingram has elite wingspan.

Oh yeah. Thanks. I forgot about that.

[76ciology]

Ok. Just pointing out that you can roll the dice again where you can take advantage of lakers valuing Simmons above market value (not all people think gap is big between two) given their situation.

[Arsenal]

Trading Ben Simmons for D'Angelo Russell and Brandon Ingram, or for Brandon Ingram and removal of pick protection next year would be one of the worst trades ever. The only thing that could possibly rival that would be our draft day 1986 catastrophe. Simmons is THE REASON why we tanked. To get a superstar. We didn't tank to get a few nice young players, we tanked at a historic level to get SUPERSTARS.

76ciology, your said it yourself, the Lakers NEED Simmons to be the first superstar to attract other superstars to play with him. That same exact logic applies to US.

It's pretty clear to most people who know the game that Simmons has superstar potential, while Ingram and Russell don't.

[Arsenal]

Ok. Just pointing out that you can roll the dice again where you can take advantage of lakers valuing Simmons above market value (not all people think gap is big between two) given their situation.

This is incorrect. The Lakers are not valuing Simmons "above market value". You and the Ingram lovers are valuing Ingram above market value and Simmons far below market value.

[76ciology]

Trading Ben Simmons for D'Angelo Russell and Brandon Ingram, or for Brandon Ingram and removal of pick protection next year would be one of the worst trades ever. The only thing that could possibly rival that would be our draft day 1986 catastrophe. Simmons is THE REASON why we tanked. To get a superstar. We didn't tank to get a few nice young players, we tanked at a historic level to get SUPERSTARS.

76ciology, your said it yourself, the Lakers NEED Simmons to be the first superstar to attract other superstars to play with him. That same exact logic applies to US.

It's pretty clear to most people who know the game that Simmons has superstar potential, while Ingram and Russell don't.

ok. point taken.

[Kobblehead]

Talk about looking a gift horse in his mouth. I've never seen such an obvious choice somehow find its way to being a contentious issue.

[Skates]

Another more subtle advantage of taking Simmons over Ingram is that we hold the LA pick next year. Ingram is projectably good, but Simmons is much more likely to be an instant impact player. For the next year Ingram likely makes LA incrementally better and is not a FA draw yet. He might get there in time, but for next year he and the overpriced FA's they sign will likely keep them out of the top three, but not catapult them into the playoffs, giving us another lottery pick in a very (allegedly) deep draft, while our own improvement is partly counterbalanced by the possible Sacto pick swap.

We take the potential superstar and help our draft positionings for next year. Win-win.

[Sixerscan]

Talk about looking a gift horse in his mouth. I've never seen such an obvious choice somehow find its way to being a contentious issue.

Poll is at 80+% Simmons. Seems fairly uncontentious.

[plead.5th]

YOu can get Russell on the cheap at the trade deadline or next summer. He doesn't have NBA athleticism and will never be a great PG in this league.

[Stanford]

Poll is at 80+% Simmons. Seems fairly uncontentious.

Kobs gets bored without intense conflict at all times.

[Unbreakable99]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/bensimmons25/status/740616451833221120[/tweet]

[CoreyGallagher]

tweet

It's cryptic, but assuming it's about all of the hubbub leading up to signing his shoe deal, considering it was just yesterday.

[LloydFree]

Another more subtle advantage of taking Simmons over Ingram is that we hold the LA pick next year. Ingram is projectably good, but Simmons is much more likely to be an instant impact player. For the next year Ingram likely makes LA incrementally better and is not a FA draw yet. He might get there in time, but for next year he and the overpriced FA's they sign will likely keep them out of the top three, but not catapult them into the playoffs, giving us another lottery pick in a very (allegedly) deep draft, while our own improvement is partly counterbalanced by the possible Sacto pick swap.

We take the potential superstar and help our draft positionings for next year. Win-win.

This is the argument that has gradually won me over to the thought of taking Simmons over Ingram. It is clear that Ingram will take longer to make an impact. Durant, who was a better athlete than Ingram, wasn't quite Durant in his 1st year. Dirk Nowitzki took two years, with that build, to become an impact player.

[mksp]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MaxRappaport/status/740630674428792832[/tweet]

Sports in the age of social media is something else.

[LongLiveHinkie]

zzzzzzzzz