# Lakers 1st round pick



## TONYALLEN42 (Jan 24, 2005)

scince we got the pick along w/ the gary payton deal where do you think that pick will land in the draft??


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

The pick is starting to look better with each passing day that Kobe is on the RL.

Ultimately I think it will be around the 18th-20th pick?

-Petey


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

I'd say 15th-18th.


----------



## TONYALLEN42 (Jan 24, 2005)

what pos. will need most help next year because we have alot of young guys in a buch of different possions?


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TONYALLEN42</b>!
> what pos. will need most help next year because we have alot of young guys in a buch of different possions?


I think it's going to be 16-21 which is a decent pick.
I think we are going to need a PG AGAIN and we are also going to want to get a very athletic big Small Forward. At this point our pick would be in the lottery most likely and I would say we'd take a PG with that pick and a SF with the Lakers pick. Payton won't resign with us and Banks will be moved by then.


----------



## banner17 (Jun 28, 2003)

If it does fall in the 16 to 21 range - I'm hoping Warrick is still on the board. I think he'd be a good fit for where Doc wants to take this team in terms of the running game. 

Warrick won't be a star, but could be a very energetic and productive bench player in the NBA. I think going small - PG, Allen, Pierce, Warrick and Jefferson could be a fun lineup to watch if Doc ever succeeds in getting the transition game into gear.


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

*What are you talking about?*

Lakers are 4-2 w/o Kobe.

I say we just let them take the pick and see what it brings next year when it is top-10 protected. 

It's not like we need to get any younger.


----------



## TONYALLEN42 (Jan 24, 2005)

atleast 10 more days of kobe's injury


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Wait, is the pick lottery protected for the Lakers or not?


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Wait, is the pick lottery protected for the Lakers or not?


Yes it is.


----------



## TONYALLEN42 (Jan 24, 2005)

what does that mean???


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TONYALLEN42</b!
> 
> what does that mean???


It means that if the Lakers don't make the playoffs, then we don't get their pick.


----------



## TONYALLEN42 (Jan 24, 2005)

wow i didnt know that, is that for every traded pick? why do that make that rule?


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TONYALLEN42</b>!
> wow i didnt know that, is that for every traded pick? why do that make that rule?


Not to every pick, it all depends by how much the team that's giving up the pick want to protect it.

The Lakers did it so they could protect themselves. What if Kobe and Odom got injured for the rest of the year. The Lakers finish with the worst record and we get the number 1 pick while making the playoffs. 

Basically it's "if our season goes to hell, we want to have a good lottery pick" because you know everyone has a chance to get a very good pick.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>aquaitious</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes it is.


Even if the Lakers make the playoffs, they may still get the 1st round pick back from the Celtics. After all, what is Ainge going to do with another pick, half the roster would be rookies/2nd year players. Celtics already have Allen, Delonte, Perkins, Jefferson, Reed and Banks. What other positions could they possibly fill through the draft?


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> Even if the Lakers make the playoffs, they may still get the 1st round pick back from the Celtics. After all, what is Ainge going to do with another pick, half the roster would be rookies/2nd year players. Celtics already have Allen, Delonte, Perkins, Jefferson, Reed and Banks. What other positions could they possibly fill through the draft?


Athletic 3
Big 4/5
Another PG?

trade up?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>aquaitious</b>!
> 
> 
> Athletic 3
> ...


Ainge is high on Reed, and the 3 is the easiest position to fill in the NBA. 

Big 4/5? What are Jefferson and Perkins, SGs?

And why would the Celtics need another 22 year old PG when they have Delonte and Banks?


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> And why would the Celtics need another 22 year old PG when they have Delonte and Banks?


Lots of good PGs in this draft and it's not clear whether West or Banks will ever be starter quality.


----------



## TONYALLEN42 (Jan 24, 2005)

you could never have too many young guys, you can keep some who have tremendous potential or use them as trade bait.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> Ainge is high on Reed, and the 3 is the easiest position to fill in the NBA.
> ...


If it's the easiest why don't we have it?

Yes they're SG's. I've never seen someone play 48 minutes though. An althletic 4 isn't bad either.

No one's happy with Banks' play, and Delonte's been on the IL for all but 3 games this season.


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

*Banks has had a great month*

Marcus is making progress.....

I say we let the Lakers keep their pick, regardless, and go for it next year.

We don't need kids. We have 7 of them.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> Ainge is high on Reed, and the 3 is the easiest position to fill in the NBA.
> ...


He was also high on Hunter last year. If I were Reed I wouldn't make any long term plans for being in Boston. He's an undersized 4 that might never be more than a 12-15 man on a roster.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Reed will be gone, Hunter was better than Reed and actually got playing time and he's gone. Reed will be gone, he will never get play in Boston. We need an athletic big 3 and a PG desperately. These are what we will select in the draft. Marcus or Delonte will be gone and so will GP.


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

*I disagree, rhino*

I think GP will be gone, but I think Reed is a better player than Hunter, having seen them both in summer league.

Hunter cannot get a shot off; he is too small.

Reed is a power three, but look at all the wing players we have. We may keep him.

At this point, we will lose GP, Stewart and Googs off the roster. We could keep Reed. I hope he gets a chance. 

And yes, Marcus is playing better.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Reed is _not_ a power 3, he's an undersized 4 that lacks the quickness to play the 3. Josh Smith he ain't. In any event the Celtics scouting folks have been seen at many PC & Syracuse games, so it's a safe bet that they have their eyes on Gomes & Warrick amongst other items.


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ehmunro</b>!
> Reed is _not_ a power 3, he's an undersized 4 that lacks the quickness to play the 3. Josh Smith he ain't. In any event the Celtics scouting folks have been seen at many PC & Syracuse games, so it's a safe bet that they have their eyes on Gomes & Warrick amongst other items.


Please give me Warrick and/or Gomes before we bring in another point guard. Lets keep the two we have and develop them. No more point guards, PLEASE!


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

They have two guys whose upside seems to be "good reserve" or "serviceable starter". Put into baseball terminology no matter how much you "develop" Kevin Youkilis, he's still Kevin Youkilis. If Williams, Gilchrist or Jack float to them, there's zero chance of Ainge passing on them (unless there's a great center available). Either Banks or West will be going this summer anyway, and probably Banks since Doc doesn't like short point guards.


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

It is my understanding that we don't really have a choice on this pick, it is lottery protected, so if the Lakers make the playoffs we have to take it this year, we don't have the option of deferring it.


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

*Your understanding is wrong*

We had the option with Denver's pick a few years back. Unfortunately, we took the pick and ended up w/Kedrick Brown or something. 

Yes, the Celtics can defer. I think they should.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Denver was a bad team getting worse, LA is an average team that will get better. The 2005 draft is very deep, the 2006 one isn't (though the top of the draft will be better), by 2007 you're looking at a late first round pick. Different situations.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ehmunro</b>!
> Denver was a bad team getting worse, LA is an average team that will get better. The 2005 draft is very deep, the 2006 one isn't (though the top of the draft will be better), by 2007 you're looking at a late first round pick. Different situations.


This is true. 2005 more quality players (like this draft), but 2006 more franchise at the top.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

You have to take the pick when you think it's going to be the highest, if LA is in the playoffs this year it's going to be as a low seed, that's the highest that pick is going to get for us, so if they make the playoffs just barely, we have to take the pick this year...you DO NOT wait until that pick goes from being around an 18 to being a 28.:no:


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

I agree that pick this year is probably the best it is going to get, because that team with Caron and Odom, despite that ball hog Kobe is only going to get better the more familiar they get with each other, best case scenario for us is that the lakers just make it into the 8th seed in the west, which is possible between the coaching change and Kobe being hurt.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> This is true. 2005 more quality players (like this draft), but 2006 more franchise at the top.


This draft reminds me a lot of 2001, it's a bad year to be holding a top 5 pick, but a great year to have multiple picks in the 6-20 range. Unless The Pilsbury Draftboy (aka Chris Wallace) is making your selections. I think the deferral crowd is hoping the Lakers undergo a complete collapse in 2008 and Boston gets the first pick. Problem is that if LA gets a mid first round pick this year I can guarantee you they fix their point guard problem with a draft pick, which will only serve to make them even better long term. If you get the 16-20 pick this year you grab it. They can always deal Banks or West for a deferred first.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ehmunro</b>!
> 
> 
> This draft reminds me a lot of 2001, it's a bad year to be holding a top 5 pick, but a great year to have multiple picks in the 6-20 range. Unless The Pilsbury Draftboy (aka Chris Wallace) is making your selections. I think the deferral crowd is hoping the Lakers undergo a complete collapse in 2008 and Boston gets the first pick. Problem is that if LA gets a mid first round pick this year I can guarantee you they fix their point guard problem with a draft pick, which will only serve to make them even better long term. If you get the 16-20 pick this year you grab it. They can always deal Banks or West for a deferred first.


Not to mention that the Lakers also have Miami's first round pick this year. Should the Lakers miss the playoffs and pick up either Shelden Williams (enforcer/rebounder) or Hakim Warrick (athletic/active combo forward to play with Odom) with their first pick and then take a PG with their next pick (Travis Diener, Curtis Stinson or Luther Head), they would still be able to fill their weaknesses with their MLE and LLE giving them a full cast to go back at it again in 2005-06. 

So if the Lakers make the playoffs, in all honesty it might be better long term for the Celtics, because they get to grab a decent player in the mid-first round and Danny's drafting so far is something to be pleased about.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Worse, if they miss the playoffs you _know_ that one of their numbers is coming up in the draft lotto, and they'll end up with someone like Marvin Williams. Best that they eke out the eighth spot in the West and that Boston get two selections in the 9-18 range.


----------



## TONYALLEN42 (Jan 24, 2005)

it dosent look like we're getting that pick now, rudy-t just anounced hes quitting and i dont think they could get very far with a different no-name coach


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Rudy T's a great coach, but Kobe's running that show out there. They actually need someone that can work within that context. They might go just as far without Rudy T.


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

*I hope they make it and we give them the pick*

Munro, I see you are a draft nut, and know your college players.

But ask yourself, does this team need to get any YOUNGER? 

Hell no.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

But you have to maximise the asset. Passing on the 16th-20th pick in deep draft for the chance to get the 28th pick in a shallow one makes no sense. They can always move Banks or West for a future first if that floats your boat. Or even deal the Lakers pick to a bad team for a future first. In truth if Jiri isn't dealt at the trade deadline he'll be gone by draft day, so the player they get from the Lakers won't truly make the team that much younger.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ehmunro</b>!
> But you have to maximise the asset. Passing on the 16th-20th pick in deep draft for the chance to get the 28th pick in a shallow one makes no sense. They can always move Banks or West for a future first if that floats your boat. Or even deal the Lakers pick to a bad team for a future first. In truth if Jiri isn't dealt at the trade deadline he'll be gone by draft day, so the player they get from the Lakers won't truly make the team that much younger.


Chances are along with the possible move of Jiri, Marcus or Delonte will be moved as well and regardless of what some people think I GUARANTEE Justin Reed will be gone. This team won't get younger but you don't give up 10 draft spots, that's just stupidity.


----------

