2017-18 NBA Regular Season Game/Observation Thread
- Thread starter DeJesus Built My Hotrod
- Start date
Dubs have come out playing suuuuper-lazy basketball in the 2nd half. Trying to coast to a win.
They are missing Curry and Green. And Durant is off tonight too. Finally, for some strange reason, they tend to play poorly whenever they visit Los Angeles. I cannot imagine why that might be the case.
Lonzo is the 3rd best rookie on the Lakers. Which is to say that he is the worst rookie on the Lakers.
And then injures his knee. Ingram is one of those guys who will look like a future superstar one night and JAG the very next game.
It's amazing how promising their future is given that they may have utterly whiffed on 2/3 #2 picks.
At least one of them. But they got Kuzma because of the Russell trade so they actually hit on all of them.
That was all worth it to A) make the Lakers work that much harder, if only for five minutes, B) watch Durant undress Lonzo for the go-ahead bucket, and C) watch Lonzo got rejected on the final play.
No Steph, no Dray$, no Shaun, no Zaza ... with both KD and KT clanging like crazy (16-53 FG). I'll take the W.
Fitting for it to end with Old Man West rejecting the rook — especially after the Lakers announcers had said confidently that he wasn't a shotblocker.
36 pts, 11 reb, 8 ast, 3 blk for KD, despite the clanging (and despite a fairly epic poster from Nance...)
Fitting for it to end with Old Man West rejecting the rook — especially after the Lakers announcers had said confidently that he wasn't a shotblocker.
36 pts, 11 reb, 8 ast, 3 blk for KD, despite the clanging (and despite a fairly epic poster from Nance...)
I still have Toney and Ivaroni on the mind, apologies but I'll always cheer for 76er misfortune. Deep down I fear these guys peaking over the next 2-5 seasons, just when the Celtics will be hitting their stride. Preparing myself for the Philly hate.
and Yes, we're all watching the Lakers (and cheering for the Bulls, Suns, Nets, Magic, Hawks, Mavs, Kings, Clips), this draft class is brimming with talent. Lakers are decent enough, where we'll need some ping pong luck.
I do wonder if we should be wanting the Warriors to lose that game last night, for Finals home-court advantage and all
Last edited:
Lakers have more wins than 5 teams and less wins than every other team in the league. Next up, on the road at Houston followed by a visit to GSW. Bulls are rolling, Conley isn't on the court yet with his strained Achilles. Hurry back Mike.
It's unclear to me how promising the Lakers' future is. They're 10-18. I love Lonzo still, but it's tough to say he's an A+ prospect. Ingram shows flashes. Kuzma is nifty, but he's 22. I don't mean to nitpick, but this isn't a young team that's doing surprisingly well or anything. They have seem...fine. But there's probably 15 teams in the league with a brighter future still, right?
I mean, I guess LeBron cures all ills?
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not all that high on the Lakers youth. Ingram is making a nice leap that I expected as he gained strength/experience however the higher his usage the greater his flaws are exposed. I don't feel like he's a great creator while his handle is somewhat slow and clunky......but he uses his tremendous length once he gets an angle. I'm not convinced that he can consistently achieve that angle against the elite defensive wings he'll be facing. I still like him.....just not as an elite #1 guy.
Ball is the same. He's good, he's going to get better.....but he has limitations to his game that have nothing to do with his 3-point shooting which like Ingram's coming out of college I feel will be fine. Kuzma is your prototypical active role player.....he can be good but certainly not a great player. Is his ceiling that Covington/Crowder type of wing? Clarkson is a second unit scorer. These guys aren't difference makers.
As you say.....LeBron changes everyones role on the team. If you want to use "numbers" a guy like Ingram would be much more effective as a #2 or 3 option than a 1. Kuzma better as a 4 than a 2-3......Ball's game by definition of what he does is as a complimentary player. The Lakers need star power to allow these young players to fit into the role they are best suited for........
.....but as a young core rating I don't have them as anything special on their own.
Which also means that if Kuzma becomes a star and Russell doesn't, since Kuzma was picked with the Cs pick from the Garnett / Pierce trade, BRK has blown that trade even further.
However, I agree with HRB and Bowiac. LAL has some nice players but if they don't sign LBJ this year, how good are they really going to be? Kuzma reminds me of Rashard Lewis - a great steal at #27 but someone who isn't going to be able to be a lead player on a team.
And from the games I watch (not a ton), Ingram seems to be taking a pounding and I also wonder if that is going to affect his game more quickly given his slight build.
The only really special thing about the Lakers is their brand and location, which will always make them desirable destination for stars. Most of the great players in the NBA are either from LA or have a residence there; and (alas) the Lakers even after sucking for a half-decade still have ten times the glamour of the Clippers.
In terms of actual, projectable strength of the Lakers' current assets relative to those of any other young team, I'm with Bowiac, HRB and WBCD: meh.
In terms of actual, projectable strength of the Lakers' current assets relative to those of any other young team, I'm with Bowiac, HRB and WBCD: meh.
I don't disagree with any of you guys with one exception - Kuzma is going to be a very good offensive player. He is hitting threes at 38% while taking a good 4.5 shots from deep per game. He also has the ability to create his own shot and score around the basket. If he can play defense he will be a guy who is at least the third, if not second best, player on his team.
As for the rest of the Lakers, your collective assessment of their talent level seems right. Randle is decent and Hart looks to be a solid rotation player but they are just more future role players.
As for the rest of the Lakers, your collective assessment of their talent level seems right. Randle is decent and Hart looks to be a solid rotation player but they are just more future role players.
Yeah, I think both Kuzma and Ingram have fringe all-star upside — just not elite, top 3 player upside. We're not talking Giannis, Towns, Simmons, Embiid, Jokic. I'd take Brown and Tatum over them (to play to the crowd).
Also, am I the only one who's vaguely distracted by both Kuzma and Ingram's cherry-red mouths/lips/gums? They always look like they've just been slurping cherry slush or blood — like part-vampire, part-John Elway.
Also, am I the only one who's vaguely distracted by both Kuzma and Ingram's cherry-red mouths/lips/gums? They always look like they've just been slurping cherry slush or blood — like part-vampire, part-John Elway.
I guess I rate Ingram higher than most, but it's fair to think that just might be me being paranoid regarding the Lakers' odds of success.
Ingram/Ball/Kuzma is a nice young core, but I can't see Lebron choosing to spend his twilight years breaking in a bunch of kids and getting worked night after night by GS, Houston and San Antonio. Even if they dumped Deng and added a second star like George or Cousins I'm not sure it's enough. Has anyone adequately explained why a guy obsessed with legacy and titles would want to go to this type of situation? Even if he put them over the top it's not like he's saving a moribund franchise and defining his legacy; he'd just be the latest of Lakers greats.
I guess it'd be three reasons:
one, he has a house (two houses, now, I think I read?) in L.A. so there'd by convenience and ease of life. I'm sure he's got a fine mansion in Cleveland, but....can't be the same.
two, it would be a new challenge to take a young team and show he can develop young players -- might respond to criticism he's only won with "super teams," and perhaps that'd fire up his competitive spirit.
three, as Celtics' fans often hope, there's at least some sense that playing for one of the league's legacy franchises and leading it back to glory will have appeal. It is true that he seems to be more aware of that sort of legacy stuff than most players.
Not saying I think he'll go to the Lakers -- in fact, I don't. But, certainly there's some appeal.
Btw, not for nothing, I glanced through this thread and then looked at the stats of the Lakers-Warriors game. Didn't see it, but if stats say anything, a lot of people are hate-watching/judging Lonzo.
one, he has a house (two houses, now, I think I read?) in L.A. so there'd by convenience and ease of life. I'm sure he's got a fine mansion in Cleveland, but....can't be the same.
two, it would be a new challenge to take a young team and show he can develop young players -- might respond to criticism he's only won with "super teams," and perhaps that'd fire up his competitive spirit.
three, as Celtics' fans often hope, there's at least some sense that playing for one of the league's legacy franchises and leading it back to glory will have appeal. It is true that he seems to be more aware of that sort of legacy stuff than most players.
Not saying I think he'll go to the Lakers -- in fact, I don't. But, certainly there's some appeal.
Btw, not for nothing, I glanced through this thread and then looked at the stats of the Lakers-Warriors game. Didn't see it, but if stats say anything, a lot of people are hate-watching/judging Lonzo.
Agree with you and bowiac---absent a grade-A free agent signing this is looking like a team that peaks at 50ish wins and out in second round of the playoffs, with upside of the odd 'hey, Jason Kidd Nets made the finals' kind of situation.
Best case (absent other external additions, which means FAs as they are unlikely to have major draft capital again soon) they are last year's Celtics without the picks, potential upside, or coaching right? Ingram plays the role of IT, Ball (best case) plays the value role of Horford, and those two are surrounded by quality role players. Unless one thinks Kuzma is going to make a surprising leap, I don't see it. Even if they keep Randle (not at all a sure thing) he is a numbers guy who isn't likely to be a starter on a winning team in my book.
Turning Russell into Kuzma likely has positive value, but it does reduce their mid-term upside.
How could he resist following in the footsteps of Karl Malone, Gary Payton, Dwight Howard, and Steve Nash?
There has been talk of just about every damn free agent or soon to be free agent going to LA for years now. I'm not buying it
It's an open secret at this point that he's going. I would be really surprised at this point if he does anything other than play for the Lakers next year.
I'm not buying it. Cleveland, Houston and Philly all make way more sense for a variety of reasons. I think Kevin O'Connor overstated Lebron's interest in LA with some very iffy sources and now everyone has run with it. Not saying I'd be shocked if he went but it's not consistent with the way he thinks. I still remember when him signing with New York in 2010 was a foregone conclusion.
Yeah, I'd definitely take an even money bet that he doesn't go to LA. It doesn't fit his m.o. at all: LeBron goes where he has championship level supporting talent, and LA isn't close to having that.
I always thought part of the allure of LA was that one other star would come with him (probably George) and they could use all the young assets to flip for another top star and he’d have his west coast super team. I also don’t think it’s a slam dunk, he’ll go wherever he has the best chance to get a ring.
My guess is he'll play for the Lakers at some point, but it won't be next year. I think he's going to look at a 30 win roster and decide it can wait until 2020.
Rockets are my pick.
Rockets are my pick.
Pelinka would have to be damn creative to pull that off. Even if they renounce Randle, Lopez and KCP they won't have enough money for two superstars. They'll have to trade Clarkson and/or stretch-waive Deng. At that point, it's Lebron/George/Ball/Kuzma/Ingram and some minimum salary guys filling out the bench with Hart, Nance and Zubac. That's an okay top 8 but it'd be hard to come up with the salary ballast to swing that next deal for the third guy even if Ball and Ingram would be coveted on the trade market.
I think that's the idea. He and George go to the Lakers and then they flip some package of their young talent for another star player (hello Klutch Sports Group client John Wall!) while signing a few veteran ring chasers to round out their bench. Or maybe they sign Paul instead. I wouldn't be shocked if there have already been high-level discussions between Rich Paul and Magic/Pelinka on how a LeBron-led Lakers *might* look in 2018. And per our posts upthread, I doubt that there are any players on the current Lakers roster who are untouchable if the Lakers can sign a James, a George/Paul and then need to add a third star via trade.
The other reason that LA is a good next spot for James is that its one of the few viable destinations available that allows him to bolster his brand into retirement. There are no shortage of producers and industry types who will do whatever they can to foster his post-NBA aspirations in exchange for courtside seats (or a few rows back given that these are already spoken for at Staples) and access to the team behind the velvet rope. Of course, the Knicks offer something similar but their available talent to trade is nowhere near that of the Lakers.
Finally, I get the current Houston speculation. They are a hot team and their talent level makes them a viable destination for James. That said, they still have to resign Paul and are going to have to let a few other key players walk including Ariza and Capela (who is due to get paid after this year). There is also the question of whether LeBron wants to play for a guy like Mike D'Antoni who has had mixed success dealing with NBA stars prior to landing in Houston. I like Luke Walton and think he will be a good NBA head coach. However, I doubt he is calling the shots in LA right now and is more likely to go along with the wishes of a player-coach like LeBron than D'Antoni is in Houston.
They are in a better position to add payroll than the Rockets in 2018 and beyond.
The Rockets won't need to add payroll. They'd have 3 top 10 players plus Clint Capela. (I assume that Lebron to Houston involves a trade for Anderson, Gordon, and Picks.)
They need to resign Paul and Capela and then add LeBron. I have them at ~$80mm before any of that happens.
Unless I'm missing something, if Cleveland plays ball on a sign-and-trade (as they did with Miami), then Houston can re-sign Paul and Capela, and then trade Anderson/Gordon/picks for LeBron.
Outscored 30-17 in the 4th quarter. Back to back losses, to the Bulls and the Kings.
Don't we get their pick if it's in the 2-5 range?
1.5 games now separate 2nd Place and 5th Place in the Pacific Division.
LAC 11-18
LAL 10-18
PHO 11-21
SAC 10-20
GSW doing a bit better, but it looks like Steph is out at least another week, including the Xmas day game v the Cavs. Booooo!
Fun fact: the Warriors won *zero* Pacific division titles in the 38 seasons between 1975-76 and 2014-15.
LAC 11-18
LAL 10-18
PHO 11-21
SAC 10-20
GSW doing a bit better, but it looks like Steph is out at least another week, including the Xmas day game v the Cavs. Booooo!
Fun fact: the Warriors won *zero* Pacific division titles in the 38 seasons between 1975-76 and 2014-15.
Fair enough. The Lakers could offer the Cavs more in a S&T deal, right?
On another note, how will Milwaukee blow this lead to the Cavs?