# Stealth Tank or nah??



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Time to sell off any of the vets worth anything. Lou and Nick Young should fetch us something. Tarik has become expendable too with the emergence of Zubac. Heard a pretty relevant tidbit today. If the Lakers keep their 2017 first rounder this year, they also keep their 2019 first because the first round pick owed to Orlando becomes two 2nd rounders.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

We are not tanking, we are just bad.

This team doesnt need more youth. Everyone on the team should be considered available for the right deal, but there is no need to trade vets for crappy draft picks.


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

I don't think any trades are necessary to tank. My hope is the team can draft a PG (Ball) then package Russell for an all-star. Deangelo is not athletic enough to ever lead the team back to glory. Too slow and can't play defense.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

I think Tarik and Nick Young are solid trade candidates. While I love Tarik's hustle and grit, he's become expendable due to Zubac's emergence and the glut of 4 men we already have. Nick is most likely going to opt out after this year to cash in on his improved play this year. With the amount if cash that's going to be flying around this summer, I think our money would be better spent somewhere else instead of overpaying to keep Nick Young.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

even if we were tanking our chances of keeping the pick are pretty small plus I agree with the above poster who said we have enough youth (I think Mitch also said that earlier this season)


----------



## Uncle Drew (Dec 16, 2013)

I agree with some of the LA writers and media people that have spoken out about pushing for playing time for our young players, not necessarily tanking. Start Ingram indefinitely, give Zubac more time, play our young players 33-35 min unless they're giving a complete crap effort (Russell and Randle have been guilty of this). We're not winning with our current minute distribution anyway, so get something out of it. Call it a stealth tank if you want, but we're doing a pretty good job of losing without trying, so eff it. 

If we keep our pick this year, it'll be mostly due to luck (again). But I agree, we have enough youth. We need to develop.


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

I don't buy into the too much youth idea. Randle is still a major question mark, and Russell hasn't really looked much better than last year. Neither of them are consistent enough to plan around. 

Zubac, to me, looks to be a lock, based on his age, size, and ability to patrol the paint. He should be getting as many minutes as possible. Mozgov needs to go; shouldn't have ever been signed to begin with. 

Ingram has grit, and kind of reminds me of rookie Kobe. I think he has the most upside, despite his tough year shooting. 

I guess I agree with trading Tarik. He's probably as good as he will ever be, and he can't catch the ball. 

Lou Williams deserves to be on a better squad, competing for a championship.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Signing superstar free agents is going to be tougher to do due to the new CBA which makes it easier to keep your stars. The more chances we have to draft a star, the better. While I think Russell will be very good, I don't see superstar with him. I think his ceiling is a solid number two guy. Ingram is probably our only young guy with legit superstar potential. I can see him becoming a better shooting Greek Freak.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Really? 

How many years do we need to tank and how many lottery picks do we need to accumulate to finally get back to the playoffs? You want us to be a decade long joke cycling through coaches and teenagers every year like the Sacramento Kings?

These youngsters finishing the season 500 will do a lot more for the franchise than getting another 19 year old in the summer would.


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

There's less than a 10% chance of them going .500 over the next few months. Last night was an anomaly. And it was the Nuggets. The fact is that it will be difficult to sign any good free agents going forward until the team and front office can gain some respect, thus making the draft very, very important. Signing Mozgov to 4/64 and overpaying 20 mil for Deng will not be forgotten; the front office still looks like morons to agents and players.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

MojoPin said:


> There's less than a 10% chance of them going .500 over the next few months. Last night was an anomaly. And it was the Nuggets. The fact is that it will be difficult to sign any good free agents going forward until the team and front office can gain some respect, thus making the draft very, very important. Signing Mozgov to 4/64 and overpaying 20 mil for Deng will not be forgotten; the front office still looks like morons to agents and players.


Finishing the remaining games over 500, not the overall season.

Restablish a winning culture. Have the youth prove they know how to win in the NBA. Taking progressive steps is a better recipe for success than trying to hit a home run in the lottery or recruiting a free agent to join a lottery team.

Also please elaborate on how Deng and Mozgov are hurting the franchise? Maybe you can argue that in three years when Randle's extension kicks in, but not right now.


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

Jamel Irief said:


> Finishing the remaining games over 500, not the overall season.
> 
> Restablish a winning culture. Have the youth prove they know how to win in the NBA. Taking progressive steps is a better recipe for success than trying to hit a home run in the lottery or recruiting a free agent to join a lottery team.
> 
> Also please elaborate on how Deng and Mozgov are hurting the franchise? Maybe you can argue that in three years when Randle's extension kicks in, but not right now.


The Lakers are 17-34. There are 31 games left. It's not realistic whatsoever to think they will double their win total over the remaining months. Impossible, almost.

Deng and Mozgov signings are hurting the franchise because they are terrible deals, and everyone knows it. Players and agents pay attention to stuff like that. Signing a stiff to 4/64 at 12:01am during first hour of free agency is complete incompetence, and it makes Jim Bust almost look like even more of an idiot than when he traded four first round picks for 40 year old Steve Nash. The perception is that the front office is a joke, and it's mostly correct aside from the drafting.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

MojoPin said:


> The Lakers are 17-34. There are 31 games left. It's not realistic whatsoever to think they will double their win total over the remaining months. Impossible, almost.
> 
> Deng and Mozgov signings are hurting the franchise because they are terrible deals, and everyone knows it. Players and agents pay attention to stuff like that. Signing a stiff to 4/64 at 12:01am during first hour of free agency is complete incompetence, and it makes Jim Bust almost look like even more of an idiot than when he traded four first round picks for 40 year old Steve Nash. The perception is that the front office is a joke, and it's mostly correct aside from the drafting.


I highly disagree. 

I think it was viewed as a team dying to get back to respectability, and they wanted to surround some solid starting role players around the youngsters that don't know how to win in the NBA. Mozgov and Deng between the two have a ring and three conference finals appearances, and they aren't liabilities. The contracts aren't crippling anything, and neither player is a liability. I would rather have those two at that salary than say Joel Anthony and Alonzo Gee at minimum deals. 

Its nothing like trading 3 first rounders for a old player in hopes he'll take them to a ring. You lose first rounders in that transaction. In this case all you lost was Jim Buss' money. Maybe the contracts are crippling the franchise in year 3, but certainly not today.


----------



## arasu (Jan 18, 2013)

Eventually this team needs to stop getting younger and start getting better. If they are lucky enough to win a top pick, my preference is to try to get an in-his-prime star who could carry the team while it grows around him. The Lakers have almost the same chance of landing a top 3 pick as last year, assuming they continue to stink it up. If they do win a top pick, I'd be in favor of trading the pick for an established star. The Lakers wouldn't get enough in return for D'Angelo, even if he goes on a nice run the rest of the season, at least in comparison to what they could get for a top 3 pick. By winning a top 3 pick, the Lakers actually win an extra future first rounder in the process, bringing a lot of flexibility to trade scenarios. Jimmy Butler would be the most easily acquired player who could make a real difference. A starting lineup of Russell, Butler, Ingram, Randle, and Zubac could easily grow together into a contender over the next few seasons, especially if they keep an excellent bench unit of Williams, Clarkson, Nance, and Black on the roster. If not Butler, the Lakers could possibly get other in-their-prime stars like DeRozan, Hayward, Beal, or maybe even Paul George, with the right trade package.

I'm not entirely against the idea of continuing the youth movement one more season. Guys like Ball, Fultz, Isaac, and Jackson could be future superstars. Personally I think Ball is the real deal. Due to his size, he could easily play next to Russell in a two-PG backcourt. But I think eventually one of those guys would have to be moved, and the one being moved would not have the kind of return value for a difference-making trade. While I think Ball has more potential than Russell at this point, waiting for another 20 y/o to grow into a star doesn't seem to be the right way to go. I'm generally not in favor of trading Russell, especially since he is developing chemistry with Zubac. Zubac, in my opinion, is the future franchise player for this team. Having those two develop together would be great. D'Angelo seems to be a little fragile physically, which is the only reason I'd consider trading him away. Though unlike other Laker fans I'm not down on him. 

If Young can be moved for a real asset at the deadline, I'd say go for it. His trade value hasn't been this high in quite a while. He is easily in his most productive per-minute and most efficient shooting season of his career. Cashing in makes sense, since, barring injury, he can and will opt out. I would love to keep him on the roster though, since he is such a good fit with their current system offensively. I wouldn't move him just to move him.

If Deng could be traded, even for only cap space, I think it should be done. He can still be useful on a contender as a stretch-four. His days as a SF are clearly over. He could also be solid as a mentor/role player on the right up-and-coming team. I could see the T-Wolves taking him, so long as they wouldn't have to give up real assets in return.

I'm not in favor of trading Williams, He is having his most efficient season of his career. The way the game has changed is a perfect fit for Lou. He could be an integral part of the Lakers core over the next few seasons. He is young enough to continue to play a significant role as the team improves, and provides needed leadership. Considering he doesn't get the minutes to properly showcase his talent, I think his trade value is not high enough to get the kind of return that would make it worthwhile.

As for Black, he is a valuable player, in his physical prime, and on a reasonable contract. He's the kind of guy you want contributing towards the Lakers next step towards respectability/future contender status. I doubt they could get proper return value for him in a trade.

Now is not the time to trade veterans just to "tank". It appears as though the losing will continue without making any moves anyway. A couple of those veterans could play a big part in a possible rise in the standings next season, a rise that could be undermined by cutting loose those veteran contributors for no reason other than a remote chance to improve their draft position.


----------



## arasu (Jan 18, 2013)

Jamel Irief said:


> I highly disagree.
> 
> I think it was viewed as a team dying to get back to respectability, and they wanted to surround some solid starting role players around the youngsters that don't know how to win in the NBA. Mozgov and Deng between the two have a ring and three conference finals appearances, and they aren't liabilities. The contracts aren't crippling anything, and neither player is a liability. I would rather have those two at that salary than say Joel Anthony and Alonzo Gee at minimum deals.
> 
> Its nothing like trading 3 first rounders for a old player in hopes he'll take them to a ring. You lose first rounders in that transaction. In this case all you lost was Jim Buss' money. Maybe the contracts are crippling the franchise in year 3, but certainly not today.


I totally agree. People have been down on the Deng and Mozgov signings since day one, but they have done exactly what they were brought in to do. Mozgov has put up decent shooting percentages, rebounded adequately, and has blocked the occasional shot. He is an overpaid bench player, but he has not proven to be injury-prone, nor has he played poorly enough to be an "albatross" contract. Deng has been solid as a mentor and about as productive at the SF position as he was for the Heat last season (barely good enough to get minutes). With the vast amounts of money available and rising salary floor, Deng is still somewhat tradeable.

Perception can change rapidly. As long as the Lakers are perceived to have an up-and-coming core, free agents would likely look at that rather than a couple of overpaid player signings. One has to admit the Tarik Black signing was solid. Plus Lou and Nick are on very favorable deals. Who gets the credit for those guys other than the Lakers' front office?


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Time to trade Lou and Nick and "develop the youngsters". The stealth tank is upon us. You can't have a winning culture without winning and you can't win without a superstar caliber player/s being drafted to your team. Name one current contender that was built without a superstar caliber player that they drafted. Other than Houston I can't name another one and I wouldn't really call Houston a true contender anyways. And before you all bring up superstar caliber players on shitty teams (Nola with Davis, Sac with Cousins, etc), when have those franchises ever proven that they were capable of actually building around a superstar?? The way the new CBA is built, superstar free agents are going to be hard to sign outright in free agency. Theres too much incentive to just extend with their team. If we want to trade for one, a ton of high end draft picks or young talent will be needed. If we want to draft one, the more lottery chances we get, the higher the chance of hitting on one.


----------



## arasu (Jan 18, 2013)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Time to trade Lou and Nick and "develop the youngsters". The stealth tank is upon us. You can't have a winning culture without winning and you can't win without a superstar caliber player/s being drafted to your team. Name one current contender that was built without a superstar caliber player that they drafted. Other than Houston I can't name another one and I wouldn't really call Houston a true contender anyways. And before you all bring up superstar caliber players on shitty teams (Nola with Davis, Sac with Cousins, etc), when have those franchises ever proven that they were capable of actually building around a superstar?? The way the new CBA is built, superstar free agents are going to be hard to sign outright in free agency. Theres too much incentive to just extend with their team. If we want to trade for one, a ton of high end draft picks or young talent will be needed. If we want to draft one, the more lottery chances we get, the higher the chance of hitting on one.


Trading away Lou and Young doesn't move the needle much. It could even backfire in regards to tanking, should the inevitable increased minutes for the younger guys light a fire in the team. The only point in trading them would be to get valuable assets. Lou seems like the only guy who could realistically get a 1st round pick in return. As much as the '17 draft is being hyped, I think it is shallow. The picks outside of the top 20 may be so much dead weight. Maybe a decent talent like Terrance Ferguson could fall that far, but I doubt it. I think Lou's value to next year's potential playoff run is more valuable than the potential player the Lakers could get for him, and the chance that his absence could improve the Lakers' potential to land a top pick is very thin at best.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

You don't build a winning culture by trading away your best players that are on good contracts.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Time to trade Lou and Nick and "develop the youngsters". The stealth tank is upon us. You can't have a winning culture without winning and you can't win without a superstar caliber player/s being drafted to your team. Name one current contender that was built without a superstar caliber player that they drafted. Other than Houston I can't name another one and I wouldn't really call Houston a true contender anyways. And before you all bring up superstar caliber players on shitty teams (Nola with Davis, Sac with Cousins, etc), when have those franchises ever proven that they were capable of actually building around a superstar?? The way the new CBA is built, superstar free agents are going to be hard to sign outright in free agency. Theres too much incentive to just extend with their team. If we want to trade for one, a ton of high end draft picks or young talent will be needed. If we want to draft one, the more lottery chances we get, the higher the chance of hitting on one.



You're essentially saying you don't feel anyone on the roster will be a All-NBA player. Im on record as saying I think DLo will make 6+ ASGs and I would of drafted him over Towns when most people were arguing Towns or Okafor. I don't believe he's a better prospect than Towns anymore, but I still think he can be an elite guard in this league. 

The Thunder missed the playoffs Durant first two years. They missed it in year 1 of westbrook and durant. They lost in the first round the first year of westbrook, durant, harden and ibaka. While they were a lottery team they traded for vets like Tyson Chandler and Thabo Shefolsha and signed Nenad Kristic. They weren't tanking. They were making progressive steps.

Oh and do you answer your question, the Spurs. Unless you count Parker and Ginobilli as superstars still. They're the model. They traded young player (George Hill) for a better young player (Leonard) and lured FAs because of their culture.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Ironic that you bring up the Spurs culture which was built on the back the GPFOAT that they drafted due to tanking. If you want to get into semantics by bringing up that the Spurs didn't draft Kawhi then fine. I'll concede that point because he was traded for on draft night. :sarcasm:


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Ironic that you bring up the Spurs culture which was built on the back the GPFOAT that they drafted due to tanking. If you want to get into semantics by bringing up that the Spurs didn't draft Kawhi then fine. I'll concede that point because he was traded for on draft night. :sarcasm:


Tanking? They were contenders and suffered an injury to their best player. 

And the Spurs TRADED for him on draft night. They had to give up a young player. They didn't dump Ginobilli, Parker and Duncan the season before tank into the top pick. It would be like us trading Clarkson during the draft for a future all-star. I'm in favor of that, and it's way different than what you propose.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

The injury to Robinson is one thing, but the firing of their head coach mid season, Sean Elliot sitting out most of the season with knee tendinitis and Chuck Persons missing half the season with back spasms doesn't strike you as suspect?? Okay. I know a stealth tank when I seen one. You're fine with the Kawhi draft night trade and yet you criticize what is essentially the same thing in the trading of Lou. Nobody knew Kawhi would become an all star.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Jamel Irief said:


> Also please elaborate on how Deng and Mozgov are hurting the franchise?


Just combing through this thread...saw this...wanted to point out that because of Mosgov and Deng signing it has been said time and time again that the lakers can now only sign one max player this offseason rather than two max deals.

Would that have actually happened, I dont know, just giving the facts


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Jamel Irief said:


> *I think it was viewed as a team dying to get back to respectability*, and they wanted to surround some solid starting role players around the youngsters that don't know how to win in the NBA. Mozgov and Deng between the two have a ring and three conference finals appearances, and they aren't liabilities. The contracts aren't crippling anything, and neither player is a liability. I would rather have those two at that salary than say Joel Anthony and Alonzo Gee at minimum deals.
> 
> Its nothing like trading 3 first rounders for a old player in hopes he'll take them to a ring. You lose first rounders in that transaction. In this case all you lost was Jim Buss' money. *Maybe the contracts are crippling the franchise in year 3, but certainly not today.*


I would use the term "desperate" instead of "dying". Those were both desperate moves. Overpaying to get somewhat notable names AKA Knicks Guide to Building a Team 101. Even if both players had performed well this year they are shit contracts to deal with when clearly they are not going to a part of any long term success. They are roster fillers that are drastically overpaid.

Of course your comments were before Jeanie canned Mitch and lil Buss and I concede that. Its been reported that those two signings were the last two nails in the coffin for both of them.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> The injury to Robinson is one thing, but the firing of their head coach mid season, Sean Elliot sitting out most of the season with knee tendinitis and Chuck Persons missing half the season with back spasms doesn't strike you as suspect?? Okay. I know a stealth tank when I seen one. You're fine with the Kawhi draft night trade and yet you criticize what is essentially the same thing in the trading of Lou. Nobody knew Kawhi would become an all star.


I didn't recall any of that, minus firing Bob Hill who I think went back to college and Pop has been the coach since. I'll concede they tanked half a year. Different than half a decade like you want. That is NOT the same as what we did with Lou. They traded Lou for a pick. They traded Hill for a PLAYER. If the Pacers drafted a different player Poppovich wouldn't have traded George Hill, who was a favorite of his. And I think Pop will argue he knew how good Kawahi would be. He did call him the future of the franchise when he was a rookie averaging single digits. 




DaRizzle said:


> Just combing through this thread...saw this...wanted to point out that because of Mosgov and Deng signing it has been said time and time again that the lakers can now only sign one max player this offseason rather than two max deals.
> 
> Would that have actually happened, I dont know, just giving the facts


If we sign one max player, then you can be critical that Deng and Moz blocked us from the second.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

DaRizzle said:


> I would use the term "desperate" instead of "dying". Those were both desperate moves. Overpaying to get somewhat notable names AKA Knicks Guide to Building a Team 101. Even if both players had performed well this year they are shit contracts to deal with when clearly they are not going to a part of any long term success. They are roster fillers that are drastically overpaid.
> 
> Of course your comments were before Jeanie canned Mitch and lil Buss and I concede that. Its been reported that those two signings were the last two nails in the coffin for both of them.


I go back and forth on how I feel about this contracts. I feel 90% of the FAs signed this past summer were overpaid. It reminds me of around 2005-2007 when every team would use and max their MLE on the best player they can get even if they weren't worth that. What I didn't want is just starting Ingram and Nance lets say with 3 other guys under 24 and letting them fumble their way into learning. We needed capable veterans that knew how to win and needed to play half a game and not be liabilities. Were there better, cheaper, options?


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Jamel Irief said:


> If we sign one max player, then you can be critical that Deng and Moz blocked us from the second.


WELL...you were saying signing them didnt hurt the Lakers...I think it already has from a negotiation standpoint...They cant tell potential max player #1 that we can and will get max player #2 . Max player #1 now has less incentives to come...this applies to above avg players chasing rings/winning teams...they know the Lakers have that much less money to play with to get even more talent...so Im right youre wrong neener neener haha.

All Im saying is it certainly didnt HELP :hibbert:


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

at this point there's nothing 'stealth' about it


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

now that Hornets game was just about perfect, D'Angelo and Julius were ballin' and we kept things interesting and competitive throughout (and still managed the L)


----------

