The terribly mediocre Lakers

[Tony C]

I thought the SI re-draft was very convincing, and placing Kuzma at #10 seemed just about right. Of course he's a more mature rookie than others, so can expect more growth from guys like Ball or Fox etc. At the same time, the guy can score, his passing/movement is really improving, and while he'll probably never be a great rebounder there's room to get stronger/improve on the defensive end. He'll never be an elite player so, no, he wouldn't be in the top 5 or even top 7/8 in an excellent draft like this one, but top #10 in a great draft is really good.

 

[Gunfighter 09]

This isn't the NFL draft. In basketball it's a common occurrence for three and four year college players to post better production numbers year one than 19 year olds. The question is what is that 19 year old going to be producing in years 3-7.

I agree with this line of thinking, it is just surprising to hear considering the discussion about Ingram and Ball in this thread.

His defense at an important defensive position is very bad, which limits his value substantially, but offensively I don't think anyone could've asked for more.

2017 draftees I'd take ahead of him:

Tatum
Mitchell
Ball
Anunoby
Markkanen
John Collins
Bell


There are age-related cases for Ntilikina, Jarrett Allen, Zach Collins and Dennis Smith. I'll abstain on Fultz and Jonathan Isaac due to lack of information.

That is not a bad list, I would take off Anunoby, Bell (who is six months older than Kuzma) and add in Kuzma and Dennis Smith. After you go Mitchell, Ball, Markkanen, and Tatum I think you can add the others in any order you prefer based on team needs. Kuzma could certainly fit in the # 5 slot.

(Edit: I have seen a bunch of Bell, and only a little of Anunoby, a little help with the logic on the Brit would be appreciated, I realize other people really like him, I just don't know why)

Another interesting Kuzma game is where he fits into the birth year year 1995 players if you rank them by tiers:

1A - Porzingas
1B - KAT

a bunch of space

2 -Jokic

another large amount of space

3A - Wiggins
3B - Aaron Gordon

4A - Kuzma
4B - Trey Lyles
4C - Hollis Jefferson
4D - Jordan Bell

5A - Okafor
6A- Oubre

or something like that. Kuzma is certainly in the top 6-8 of his birth year so far.

There are some notable 1995 guys who look a bit like busts (Exum, Hezonja) or who have had significant injury issues (Jabari Parker, LaVine) and are difficult to place.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/birthyears.fcgi?year=1995

 

[Imbricus]

I have seen a bunch of Bell, and only a little of Anunoby, a little help with the logic on the Brit would be appreciated, I realize other people really like him, I just don't know why

Actually, I'm not sure why either, though I'll confess I haven't seen him much in action either. I know him mainly from surfing the box scores, where he seems solid but the stat lines never jump out at me. I don't remember him making much of an impression when the Celts played Toronto. Apparently he has an excellent wingspan and, coming out of college, defense was supposed to be "his calling card." Still, he's starting and averaging only 0.1 blocks per game. I don't see him top 10 in a redraft.

 

[DannyDarwinism]

That is not a bad list, I would take off Anunoby, Bell (who is six months older than Kuzma) and add in Kuzma and Dennis Smith. After you go Mitchell, Ball, Markkanen, and Tatum I think you can add the others in any order you prefer based on team needs. Kuzma could certainly fit in the # 5 slot.

(Edit: I have seen a bunch of Bell, and only a little of Anunoby, a little help with the logic on the Brit would be appreciated, I realize other people really like him, I just don't know why)

In regards to Bell and Anunoby, it's partly because, in theory, I prefer a versatile, switchable big who plays elite defense with an efficient but limited offense to a guy who's a really poor defender at the four and doesn't have primary initiator upside, even if he has a much more polished offense. I can see a roster construction where I'd prefer the latter, particularly if Kuzma's gravity becomes such that he really opens spacing up.

Anunoby is also more of an upside play. He hasn't quite been Bell on defense, but his defensive stats are promising, and his length, strength and athleticism are great. I really think he has first team All-Defensive type potential. He was always considered raw, and the ACL tear certainly didn't help his draft stock, but if he can hit 37% of his threes like he has been, that's a 3&D on steroids. And, to extend a discussion I was having in another thread, both the Warriors and the Raptors are playing much better with Bell and Anunoby on the floor, while the Lakers are playing slightly worse with Kuzma on the floor. Standard caveats apply, but that's notable for young guys getting significant minutes on two of the best teams in the league.

I'm sure I've got some confirmation bias going on, as I liked both of theses guys pre-draft, but from all indication I see, they're both helping good teams win.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

I agree with this line of thinking, it is just surprising to hear considering the discussion about Ingram and Ball in this thread.




That is not a bad list, I would take off Anunoby, Bell (who is six months older than Kuzma) and add in Kuzma and Dennis Smith. After you go Mitchell, Ball, Markkanen, and Tatum I think you can add the others in any order you prefer based on team needs. Kuzma could certainly fit in the # 5 slot.

(Edit: I have seen a bunch of Bell, and only a little of Anunoby, a little help with the logic on the Brit would be appreciated, I realize other people really like him, I just don't know why)

Another interesting Kuzma game is where he fits into the birth year year 1995 players if you rank them by tiers:

1A - Porzingas
1B - KAT

a bunch of space

2 -Jokic

another large amount of space

3A - Wiggins
3B - Aaron Gordon

4A - Kuzma
4B - Trey Lyles
4C - Hollis Jefferson
4D - Jordan Bell

5A - Okafor
6A- Oubre

or something like that. Kuzma is certainly in the top 6-8 of his birth year so far.

There are some notable 1995 guys who look a bit like busts (Exum, Hezonja) or who have had significant injury issues (Jabari Parker, LaVine) and are difficult to place.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/birthyears.fcgi?year=1995

I'm not sure this really says much. You should rank him with players as young or younger than him. Once you do that, he probably drops out of the top 20, although a lot of it is based on projection. Still a great pick by the Lakers to end up with a lottery talent with the 27th pick. Going forward, I'd rather have D'Angelo Russell who is only 21. I get that trade was more about salary, though.

I asked what people thought Kuzma's upside was and the only answer I got was Otto Porter. Porter has excellent measurements while Kuzma's are below average for an NBA player.


edit: Also don't get the Anunoby love but he's only 20, an athletic freak and has a decent shot. I guess he's not really far off from where Jaylen Brown was last year.

 

[Gunfighter 09]

I'm not sure this really says much. You should rank him with players as young or younger than him.

You've got to help me here, isn't ranking him against other players from his birth year exactly what you are asking for in your post?

Further, which measurements are you referring to with Kuzma & Porter?

Based on their combine numbers, Kuzma is an inch taller, 25 pounds heavier, two inches taller in the standing reach and only an inch shorter in wingspan. Has Porter grown, and been measured, since the combine?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1642351-otto-porter-jr-nba-combine-2013-measurements-analysis-and-draft-projection
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2709370-nba-combine-results-2017-friday-measurements-highlights-and-top-prospects

 

[Cesar Crespo]

You've got to help me here, isn't ranking him against other players from his birth year exactly what you are asking for in your post?

Further, which measurements are you referring to with Kuzma & Porter?

Based on their combine numbers, Kuzma is an inch taller, 25 pounds heavier, two inches taller in the standing reach and only an inch shorter in wingspan. Has Porter grown, and been measured, since the combine?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1642351-otto-porter-jr-nba-combine-2013-measurements-analysis-and-draft-projection
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2709370-nba-combine-results-2017-friday-measurements-highlights-and-top-prospects

Porter plays SF for one, not PF. I also guess it depends on the reports you believe. But a SF who is 6'7.5 with a wing span of 7'1.5 and a reach of 8'9.5 is far different than a PF who is 6'9 with a wing span of 7 feet. Even then, 1.5 inches is significant.

As for the age thing, I dunno. I just think calling him the 7th or 8th best 22 year old in the NBA is deceiving. Plus Bell and Jefferson are 23 years old. If you include them, you have to include Giannis, who is all of 28 days older than Jefferson.

edit: The sample size of 22 year olds in the nba is 39. It also sounds like we have the same evaluation of Kuzma as a player anyway. The Trey Lyles tier.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I agree with this line of thinking, it is just surprising to hear considering the discussion about Ingram and Ball in this thread.

I think that if I had to rank those three right now, for total career value (not present value), I'd still go Ingram, Ball, Kuzma.

 

[mauf]

I think that if I had to rank those three right now, for total career value (not present value), I'd still go Ingram, Ball, Kuzma.

I’d flip-flop Ingram and Ball. They’re the same age and are about equally good right now, but Ball is still a rookie, and I’m sure the drama with his family has hurt his performance — even the most ardent Ball-hater doesn’t think he’s really a 48% FT shooter.

Stealing Kuzma from the Nets was a coup; he’s going to be much better than expected. If he winds up being better than Ball or Ingram, however, then that means one or both of those guys busted.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Stealing Kuzma from the Nets was a coup; he’s going to be much better than expected. If he winds up being better than Ball or Ingram, however, then that means one or both of those guys busted.

Not sure I'd call it a steal as BRK would still do the trade today. People forget how young Russell is. Just before he was out for injury, Russell was averaging 21.3 points, 5.6 assists, 4.7 rebounds, and has a 20.41 PER. If he could have kept that up, here's the list of players who met those numbers before 22: Chris Paul, LBJ, Jordan, Oscar Robertson, Rose, Giannis, McGrady, Irving, Westbrook, Isaiah Thomas, Iverson, Marbury, Johnson, and Webber.

https://www.netsdaily.com/2017/11/7/16617352/dangelo-russell-why-they-brought-him-here

No denying Kuzma was a great pick at that spot (originally the Cs pick ironically) but LAL did give up the #2 overall pick to get him and cap relief.

 

[JakeRae]

Porter as a comp for Kuzma makes some sense offensively. It makes no sense defensively. At age 22, Porter had a similar scoring efficiency and rebounding rate to Kuzma (although Kuzma is much higher usage). Kuzma is a better passer, but not by a huge margin. (Kuzma is also a worse rebounder once you account for position.)

But, on defense, the comparison isn't close. Porter was already a good defender for his position. Kuzma is a really bad defender. Porter is a very good 3&D player. Kuzma looks like he can be a very good offensive player who gives back most of that value on defense.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Change this thread title already. Lakers aren’t terrible and this pick is a goner.

 

[Imbricus]

Change this thread title already. Lakers aren’t terrible and this pick is a goner.

Odds are dwindling to be sure. Right now they're ninth worst in the NBA. I'm guessing their ceiling is about 10th worst. At 10th worst, the odds of the pick conveying are a very small 2.9%. The other thing that's happened is that they've leapfrogged the Nets, who are now tied for 8th worst. My guess is the Nets sink a little lower, and that ends up being the better pick. Nets got blown out by 25 by the Bucks last night, though to be fair, I don't think they match up well against Milwaukee's size.

 

[Tony C]

Their ceiling is 10th worst? I dunno..could easily see them moving past the Knicks, Hornets, Jazz...not to mention the Pistons seem to be in free-fall. Not that the Lakers couldn't go down, too, but it was mentioned early in the season that without motivation to lose they'd be a less likely team to crash late in the season. Add in that Ball will be presumably coming back to fill more than competently at what -- without him -- is their weakest position, and the Lakers could well be perfectly mediocre the rest of the way.

 

[the moops]

That is all true, however they are likely to sell off a couple of assets before the deadline. If they lose two of Randle, Clarkson, Nance and receive nothing of present value back, that will hurt them in the win column for sure

 

[DannyDarwinism]

A couple of more wins and I'll start to root for them to make the playoffs. Sixers getting Trae Young or Jaren Jackson Jr. would be suboptimal.

 

[ifmanis5]

With Conley done the Grizz will lock in as worse than the Lakers.

Michael Wallace‏Verified account @MyMikeCheck
Grizzlies GM Chris Wallace announces in email moments ago to MVP season-ticket holders that Mike Conley will require season-ending surgery "to smooth a small bone protrusion" in his left heel. Conley is expected to make a full recovery ahead of training camp.

So I think we can also pencil in the Kings, Hawks, Magic, Mavs and Suns as worse than the Lakers. The pick is just about gone if current form holds.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

A couple of more wins and I'll start to root for them to make the playoffs. Sixers getting Trae Young or Jaren Jackson Jr. would be suboptimal.

Not sure that's such a bad result. LAL making the playoffs; letting Cs add back GH next year; and then adding the pick from what hopefully is still a terrible SAC team might be the absolute ideal result.

 

[chilidawg]

Not sure that's such a bad result. LAL making the playoffs; letting Cs add back GH next year; and then adding the pick from what hopefully is still a terrible SAC team might be the absolute ideal result.

I'd rather get the Lakers pick, but that's a pretty good consolation prize.

 

[nighthob]

If the NBA pulls the one and done rule, 2019 might be even better than 2018.

 

[Ed Hillel]

If the NBA pulls the one and done rule, 2019 might be even better than 2018.

Given college age players are starting to sign in Europe, I would anticipate it happening soon.

 

[Sprowl]

Not sure that's such a bad result. LAL making the playoffs; letting Cs add back GH next year; and then adding the pick from what hopefully is still a terrible SAC team might be the absolute ideal result.

The Kings are bad enough to get #1. We could easily get stuck with Philly's 2019 mid-20s pick.

 

[DannyDarwinism]

The Kings are bad enough to get #1. We could easily get stuck with Philly's 2019 mid-20s pick.

That would really suck, which is one of the reasons I much prefer the pick conveying this year, but thankfully next year the lottery changes so that under the worst case scenario (Sactown finishes bottom three) still only carries a 14% chance of being first pick.

 

[Ed Hillel]

The Kings are bad enough to get #1. We could easily get stuck with Philly's 2019 mid-20s pick.

I wouldn’t say easily. Absolute worst odds are 75% and the Kings won’t be tanking as they have nothing to lose.

 

[In my lifetime]

I wouldn’t say easily. Absolute worst odds are 75% and the Kings won’t be tanking as they have nothing to lose.

I am not sure what you mean by worst odds being 75%, but regardless of where the Kings finish in 2019, as DD stated above the highest chance of the #1 pick is 14%.

Let's say the season ends now, the Celtics would have approximately a 4% chance of getting pick 2 or 3 via LA. The standings on the bottom tier are very tight so it is likely to be better odds than that.

If the 96% current odds hold, then the Celtics would get the better of the 76er/King 1st pick in 2019. So the most likely way the Cs end up with the 20th pick is if the Kings win the 14% chance lottery and get the #1 pick and the 76ers make the playoffs in 2019. The only other scenario that puts the pick in the 20s is if both the Kings and 76ers make the playoffs . That seems rather unlikely - I would think significantly less probable than the Lakers getting pick 2-5 this year.

Conclusion - the chance of the Celtics getting a pick in the 20s from the 76er trade is lower than 14%.

 

[soxin6]

If the Lakers hope to acquire two max players in the off season, they are likely to trade off assets before the deadline. That is an if, but it could end up causing them to slide backwards. We will have a much better sense of our chances for getting the pick this year by the trade deadline.

 

[Ed Hillel]

I am not sure what you mean by worst odds being 75%, but regardless of where the Kings finish in 2019, as DD stated above the highest chance of the #1 pick is 14%.

I’m saying the worst odds after next season for the pick not to convey are 75%. The odds of team with the worst record getting the top pick is 25%.

Edit - Oh, well I hadn’t factored in the new anti-tanking system kicking in. Even better!

 

[the moops]

Has there been a trade in recent memory between teams where one team owns the others current draft pick? Curious if we would ever see a team give up more valuable future assets to weaken the other team to help with the draft pick. Example would be Celtics giving up MEM 1st + some other highly coveted future asset to acquire Randle + which would weaken the 2018 LAL and thus increase the value of the pick.

Obviously the LAL protections make it a little weird. Maybe a simpler scenario (with some imagination needed) would be CLE giving up future assets to BRK for current assets which serves to better the current Cavs, but severely weaken the current Nets. So even though future assets CLE gives up far outweigh the current ones they receive, the greater chances of a higher pick need to be factored in.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Going back to the discussion of the current rookies and where they'd rank in a re-draft. I haven't been able to see much of John Collins or Bam Adebayo, and I don't follow the advanced stats much, but just based on box scores, they seem to be doing a lot of good things. Collins is obviously getting some attention, but when Bam gets minutes, he can fill up the box score in a hurry. What do the stats say about these guys? Future studs, or role players?

 

[In my lifetime]

Okay, time to put the hex on. Just 3 weeks ago people were worried that LA had too favorable a shot at the #1 pick. Now over the last 10, they are tied with GS, Pelicans and 76ers for the best record in the league. So to that end, at their latest 10 game pace, the Lakers are certain to make the playoffs.

 

[nighthob]

If the Lakers hope to acquire two max players in the off season, they are likely to trade off assets before the deadline. That is an if, but it could end up causing them to slide backwards. We will have a much better sense of our chances for getting the pick this year by the trade deadline.

More importantly they don’t really have the assets to lose Deng’s contract, meaning that their easiest path to slashing payroll is moving Clarkson and Randle, two of their top seven players, for an expiring deal and a draft pick or two.

 

[BigMike]

More importantly they don’t really have the assets to lose Deng’s contract, meaning that their easiest path to slashing payroll is moving Clarkson and Randle, two of their top seven players, for an expiring deal and a draft pick or two.

But if that is what they are going to do. Why not just move them on draft night for picks? I don't see how they gain anything by dealing them now. I've seen Nance mentioned and I could see that happen, because he would likely have significant value to a contender, probably a lot more than he might at the draft. Randle and Clarkson are both young players who I think would be very easy to move on draft night

 

[bowiac]

Julius Randle will be a restricted free agent, so you can't trade him for picks.

 

[Swedgin]

Julius Randle will be a restricted free agent, so you can't trade him for picks.

But you could with a DPE

 

[Eddie Jurak]

But you could with a DPE

I think bowiac was responding to the idea that the Lakers could hold Clarkson and Randle until the offseason and then deal then for picks.

Yes, the Celtics could trade picks for Randle and absorb his contract into the DPE , though I do not think that is their greatest area of need.

 

[nighthob]

But if that is what they are going to do. Why not just move them on draft night for picks? I don't see how they gain anything by dealing them now. I've seen Nance mentioned and I could see that happen, because he would likely have significant value to a contender, probably a lot more than he might at the draft. Randle and Clarkson are both young players who I think would be very easy to move on draft night

They can’t trade Randle on draft night as he’ll be a free agent, and they don’t want to deal with a sign & trade (and JR’s cap hold) while trying to land two max guys. Randle is the sweetener to help make the Clarkson for air & picks scenario work.

Nance is another option, and would work just as well, but that would leave them either having to deal with getting two stars too stay on hold while they worked out a sign & trade to ditch Randle or renounce him lose him for nothing (as Boston did with Olynyk).

To be clear if they have two max guys tabbed, you totally renounce Randle. Or you could just add him to Clarkson and get some future firsts to help you add depth to your new team. That last approach being a better one in my opinion.

 

[the moops]

Agree with all of that except the getting future firsts for Randle and Clarkson. It's a stretch to assume a team would even give up a first just for Randle. Adding a negative asset like Clarkson means either taking back salary or settling for some future 2nds.

 

[InstaFace]

I thought part of the motivation to trade for Randle was to increase the odds of the pick conveying this year. The Lakers don't care, it's gone from them either way, so if such a situation improves what we'd be willing to offer now, so much the better for them.

 

[mauf]

Yes, the Celtics could trade picks for Randle and absorb his contract into the DPE , though I do not think that is their greatest area of need.

It’s not their most immediate need, but if Danny likes Randle for the long haul better than Smart, the deal helps the long-term as well the short-term. And it might net them a few more ping-pong balls, not that that would be a material consideration.

 

[mauf]

Agree with all of that except the getting future firsts for Randle and Clarkson. It's a stretch to assume a team would even give up a first just for Randle. Adding a negative asset like Clarkson means either taking back salary or settling for some future 2nds.

The Sixers couldn’t get a 1st rounder for Nerlens Noel this time last year. Maybe the Lakers will have better luck with Randle, but I totally agree there’s no way they get two picks for Randle and Clarkson without taking a bad contract back, which of course isn’t something the Lakers are interested in doing.

 

[mcpickl]

But if that is what they are going to do. Why not just move them on draft night for picks? I don't see how they gain anything by dealing them now. I've seen Nance mentioned and I could see that happen, because he would likely have significant value to a contender, probably a lot more than he might at the draft. Randle and Clarkson are both young players who I think would be very easy to move on draft night

Because they need to off load the salary for next season. If you do it in season, you can take back salaries that expire this summer. If you wait til the summer, you'd have to trade Clarkson(others have mentioned Randle is an RFA) to a team that's under the cap enough to absorb Clarkson so they can send back zero salary. That's a much more limited pool of teams than there would be right now. The Lakers should have zero worries about making a deal to hurt their current team. Their number one goal is to clear salary for the summer.

 

[Swedgin]

The Sixers couldn’t get a 1st rounder for Nerlens Noel this time last year. Maybe the Lakers will have better luck with Randle, but I totally agree there’s no way they get two picks for Randle and Clarkson without taking a bad contract back, which of course isn’t something the Lakers are interested in doing.

You better get Colangelo on the line, I distinctly remember Philly announcing how they traded Noel for a first.

 

[mauf]

You better get Colangelo on the line, I distinctly remember Philly announcing how they traded Noel for a first.

Iirc, it was a protected first that turned into two seconds, and was always substantially certain to do so.

 

[nighthob]

Iirc, it was a protected first that turned into two seconds, and was always substantially certain to do so.

Yeah, he was traded for two #2s. The first round pick was for announcement purposes only. If I recall correctly it was for a top 20 protected 2017 first round pick from Dallas. Which did not, of course, convey, and turned into 2017 #2 and another second rounder.

 

[Sam Ray Not]

Nerlens to Nawlins is a thing that has to happen, right? If any team could use an athletic, skilled 6-11 Kentucky wildcat with occasional emotional rough edges...

 

[Swedgin]

Iirc, it was a protected first that turned into two seconds, and was always substantially certain to do so.

Sarcasm and forums don't always mix. It was 99.9999999999% certain to be two seconds.

 

[benhogan]

Pels down Boogie and Clippers blowing it up may lead the Lakers into eyeing that 8 spot

 

[nighthob]

I don’t think they’d rush to get a four and out at the cost of their long term plans. Though for Boston’s sake it might be better for them if LA does accidentally convey the 15th pick in the draft to Philly.

If the Clippers could find a way to move Gallinari for expiring deals, it would hilariously give them the cap space to sign two max players and torpedo the Lakers.

 

[Gunfighter 09]

If the Clippers could find a way to move Gallinari for expiring deals, it would hilariously give them the cap space to sign two max players and torpedo the Lakers.

I think the Lakers demonstrated nicely what it would cost to dump Gallinari and his deal (and Gallo makes $5M more than Mozgof). If the Clippers can package a 21 year old #2 pick in the draft with Gallo, your hilarious scenario might happen.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

I'm really fucking sick of Jordan Clarkson