T-7: Will the Lakers keep their top-3 protected pick in 2017 draft?

[dAdo dA dEvil]

I would say keeping the pick would be about the polar opposite of 'lucky'.
By all accounts, we're past the 'acquire talent via draft' phase of a rebuild and have moved into the win and trade phase...
If we lose enough to keep the pick, it means everyone on the team is basically a bust, including Walton... So you better REALLY like that 2017 draft pick because everyone else is probably gone.

Don't forget that it's still a lottery with even a team barely missing the playoffs having a shot at a top 3 pick as long as they get lucky.

This is what I meant by us being "LUCKY" keeping the top 3 pick.

[danfantastk32]

Totally agree with Kilroy on this one. We just got this new coach...replacing the "toxic dumpster" that was our old coach (I don't feel that way, personally...but thats the mantra)...we have gotten a very high draft pick for the 3rd year in a row, and we also finally broke through and actually signed free agents. All players our coach wanted....said they fit right in. We've also had some other good picks in the last couple seasons as well.

All that and we're still a bottom-3 team....and people will be happy? This 4th pick takes us into title contention?

If we can't get out of the bottom muck with all the "steps" we've taken so far.....sorry, but I don't have much faith that this 4th pick is the magic sauce we needed all along.

[Inglewood Rams]

What we really have to look at is how many EXTRA wins will these off-season changes bring? Is it reasonable to think +10? +15? +20?

I think a lot of people are being overly optimistic when saying we might be able to secure an 8th seed. While that would be exciting, does anyone know if a team has ever gone from 2nd worst record to middle of the pack without signing a marquee player?

We've got to remember this isn't the NFL; teams don't typically go from 0 to 100 in the NBA. Additionally, everyone in the NBA got better with coaching changes, trades, acquisitions, etc.

That being said, I only see 3 teams max being worse than us: Suns, Nets, Kings. I'd be very surprised if we were to be anywhere above the bottom 5. Would be very sad if we were to lose the pick. I think Jimmy SHOULD go tank mode if we are in the bottom 5 in February. AT THE LEAST, we will have an asset to trade if you're all sold on "We don't need any more blue chip prospects", which is quite ridiculous considering our oldest "young core" piece will only be a few years older than whoever we'd select @ top 3.

[danfantastk32]

I think a lot of people are being overly optimistic when saying we might be able to secure an 8th seed. While that would be exciting, does anyone know if a team has ever gone from 2nd worst record to middle of the pack without signing a marquee player?

That being said, I only see 3 teams max being worse than us: Suns, Nets, Kings. I'd be very surprised if we were to be anywhere above the bottom 5. Would be very sad if we were to lose the pick. I think Jimmy SHOULD go tank mode if we are in the bottom 5 in February.

I do agree that playoffs are not something we should be worried about. We have too much youth...too much to figure out. I'm a little worried that our rough start of the season will be too much of a ding to the guy's confidence. There is no pressure to get to the playoffs. Let's turn this car around and start driving in the right direction.....thats all I ask. I think we have alot of talent now, but it will take time to bake this cake. But even with the youth...there's too much talent to continue to just wallow at the bottom. I just can't imagine us hanging out around 20-24 wins this season. That means essentially NOTHING improved. The coach didn't matter....the year's experience...the new signings...everything was practically a zero. I don't think that will be the case.

[danfantastk32]

I think Jimmy SHOULD go tank mode if we are in the bottom 5 in February. AT THE LEAST, we will have an asset to trade if you're all sold on "We don't need any more blue chip prospects", which is quite ridiculous considering our oldest "young core" piece will only be a few years older than whoever we'd select @ top 3.

I agree that you can always use nice picks. Ain't nothing wrong with nice picks. My point (if you were referring to my comment) is that if we have all these great picks, and they aren't equaling improvement....then it sounds like we have other issues. Issues that yet another nice pick prob wont do much to solve. And while yes, it would be wise to tank under the scenario you gave....if this team is truly a bottom feeder again, then the fact that we got another pick will do little to make me feel better. At some point, 4-5 nice picks should prob start to speak for themselves, right?

Don't get me wrong....I'll take good picks till the cows come home. But it's more an issue of "doing the same thing, and expecting a different result" in regards to just tanking, if we're at the bottom again.

Should he tank? Of course....but I want to see other things as well.

[simon24]

Last year of the tank

We are getting that too 3 pick

Who is worse. Brooklyn ?
They have reason to tank

Lakers will be terrible

Brookyln has no business tanking as their pick will go to the Celtics no matter what ( Swap Rights)

However, i do agree with you that we keep the pick. We have very limited talent. We play in the hardest conference with the hardest schedule in the league. Unless the kids improve dramatically, we're last in the West again, which is probably a good thing.

I agree. Atkinson is really going to have to coach those boys up. I'd hate to see Boston have a great shot at getting the #1 pick.

[simon24]

Last year of the tank

We are getting that too 3 pick

Who is worse. Brooklyn ?
They have reason to tank

Lakers will be terrible

Brookyln has no business tanking as their pick will go to the Celtics no matter what ( Swap Rights)

However, i do agree with you that we keep the pick. We have very limited talent. We play in the hardest conference with the hardest schedule in the league. Unless the kids improve dramatically, we're last in the West again, which is probably a good thing.

Yea
Totally forgot to put "no" in there for Brooklyn.

Lakers just don't have enough versatile athletic wings.
Unless Anthony brown turns into prime tony Allen we have 18 year old Ingram as the best wing option.

Lots of players to play pf and center

No one at SG or SF

Yeah, I never understood the Deng signing when you got Ingram at SF and Randle who you're still trying to develop into your PF which is Deng's best position.

[DEEP3CL]

Short answer...NO

Long answer....NO

If we even come close to winning over 30 games that pick is as good as gone....book it.

[crazyeights]

Brookyln has no business tanking as their pick will go to the Celtics no matter what ( Swap Rights)

However, i do agree with you that we keep the pick. We have very limited talent. We play in the hardest conference with the hardest schedule in the league. Unless the kids improve dramatically, we're last in the West again, which is probably a good thing.

Yea
Totally forgot to put "no" in there for Brooklyn.

Lakers just don't have enough versatile athletic wings.
Unless Anthony brown turns into prime tony Allen we have 18 year old Ingram as the best wing option.

Lots of players to play pf and center

No one at SG or SF

Yeah, I never understood the Deng signing when you got Ingram at SF and Randle who you're still trying to develop into your PF which is Deng's best position.

Deng played 27% of his minutes last year at small forward, so I imagine the signing was to take pressure off of Ingram to start right away. So they can bring him along organically. And once that happens Deng can slide into the Iggy role off the bench.

What would be more head-scratching is signing an in his prime wing player. The fact that Deng is being phased out of being a small forward is probably good for chemistry as it won't create too much friction with our blue chip talent.

There are a lot of options if Deng can't play SF, too. You play him at PF and either have Nance/Randle/Ingram guard the other forward. You can move Ingram to SG for some minutes in order to get Nance/Randle extra minutes or you can play either one as a small ball 5.

There are a lot of question marks, in that we don't have a large enough sample size to know what will work best, but Luke's going to experiment a lot in preseason and hopefully we find a few dangerous combinations.

[PKABOOICU]

At first, I actually thought the Lakers wouldnt be bad enough to keep their top 3 pick, but looking at last seasons standings, it looks like only the Nets have gotten worse.
It looks to me like the Nets and 76ers will for sure have a worse record than the Lakers. The Wolves will jump up and the Pelicans and Suns might fall a little bit. The Kings will get enough wins to not threaten the top 3 pick for as long as they have Cousins, and the Knicks have gotten significantly better.
That said, my prediction in worst records (in order) is as follows-

1. Nets
2. 76ers
3. Lakers
4. Suns
5. Pelicans
followed by the Kings, Nuggets, Magic, Bulls, and Bucks in any order.

Id say the Lakers retain their top 3 protected pick....and lets say they DO get the pick, who do they draft? Short answer- Josh Jackson.

[simon24]

Yea
Totally forgot to put "no" in there for Brooklyn.

Lakers just don't have enough versatile athletic wings.
Unless Anthony brown turns into prime tony Allen we have 18 year old Ingram as the best wing option.

Lots of players to play pf and center

No one at SG or SF

Yeah, I never understood the Deng signing when you got Ingram at SF and Randle who you're still trying to develop into your PF which is Deng's best position.

Deng played 27% of his minutes last year at small forward, so I imagine the signing was to take pressure off of Ingram to start right away. So they can bring him along organically. And once that happens Deng can slide into the Iggy role off the bench.

What would be more head-scratching is signing an in his prime wing player. The fact that Deng is being phased out of being a small forward is probably good for chemistry as it won't create too much friction with our blue chip talent.

There are a lot of options if Deng can't play SF, too. You play him at PF and either have Nance/Randle/Ingram guard the other forward. You can move Ingram to SG for some minutes in order to get Nance/Randle extra minutes or you can play either one as a small ball 5.

There are a lot of question marks, in that we don't have a large enough sample size to know what will work best, but Luke's going to experiment a lot in preseason and hopefully we find a few dangerous combinations.

Makes sense. I didn't think about the Iggy role - that's smart.

I couldn't see Randle guarding a 3.

[TKainZero]

I couldn't see Randle guarding a 3.

To be fair... He hasnt really guarded a 4 either yet...

[Inglewood Rams]

I'm starting it now... #WacksonForJackson

I see us getting Jackson & Cousins over the next couple of years and being the alpha males of the team; DLO retains leadership and keeps those 2 calm; Clarkson + Nance will be the glue guys of the team. We will trade Randle + pick within the next 3 years for some established vet.. 2021 + 2022 back to back Champs, MARK MY WORDS.

PG - D'Angelo "Ice in my Veins" Russell
SG - Josh "Damnit, I'm an athletic Bad Boy" Jackson
SF - Brandon "WIngram" Ingram
PF - Larry "Boy got BOUNCE and D" Nance JR.
C - Demarcus "Boogie" Cousins

Clarkson, Zubac, and #3 seasoned vet (SF/PF) come off the bench to form one of the best reserve squads in the league.

We will kill every team with our length, defense, and fast-paced Offense.

[crazyeights]

You don't fire Byron Scott and then continue to tank. The dude has zero shame.

You don't hang another 17 win season on a first year coach.

You don't finally spend cap space on role players in order to try to lose.

You don't develop young players by only showing them how to lose.

There is absolutely zero argument to be made that we are planning on tanking. The only reason to tank would be if we had severe injuries, but aside from that it makes no sense for what would be a max 64.3% shot at keeping a pick.

[cambomvmt]

You don't fire Byron Scott and then continue to tank. The dude has zero shame.

You don't hang another 17 win season on a first year coach.

You don't finally spend cap space on role players in order to try to lose.

You don't develop young players by only showing them how to lose.

There is absolutely zero argument to be made that we are planning on tanking. The only reason to tank would be if we had severe injuries, but aside from that it makes no sense for what would be a max 64.3% shot at keeping a pick.

wouldn't be tanking but none of the coaches change, ingram or the fa signing wpuld guarantee us any more wins than last yr

[MAMBAEMD]

We are not tanking, unless there are several significant injuries early in the year.
Even then, I think they'll go all out to win every game.

There has been a cultural transformation this off-season, and there is no room what so ever for tanking with the new mind set.

There is a small chance that we keep the top 3 pick even with trying hard to win and not tanking.

But I think we're good enough to win around 30 games and that will take us out of the top 3 conversation.

[danfantastk32]

There is a small chance that we keep the top 3 pick even with trying hard to win and not tanking.
But I think we're good enough to win around 30 games and that will take us out of the top 3 conversation.

Some heartening facts:

I agree that we should prob win about 30 games. Ok...so last season, the Pelicans won exactly 30 games. That put them 6th in the lottery....giving them a 21.5% chance at a top-3 pick. #7 in the Lottery was Denver with 33 wins. 7th gives you a 15% chance at a top-3 pick. The T-Wolves were 5th in the lottery, with 29 wins. That gave them a 29.1% chance.

Hey....If we can win 29 games, and roll in with 30% chance, I'll take that.