Catman 380 Report post Posted June 25, 2015 our replacement big better be good. Vuc ie all we have in the post really. Agree. I think it will be Koufos and the scoring load will be shifted to our guards and wings. Honestly that scenario or trading Vuc and some other guys to get Russell and then trade 5 for Favors would be unreal. It's not going to happen, but that would be an amazing day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Murphy13 185 Report post Posted June 25, 2015 WE MAY DRAFT RUSSELL AT 2 INSTEAD. Maybe if I type in all caps it makes more sense. It's not that it doesn't make sense, it's just that Russell just doesn't make sense for us. We need offense, but not from the backcourt. We have a killer distributor and defender at the point...we need a big that can put the ball in the basket to take advantage of his skills. I like Russell but our makeup isn't right for him. We need a four big time, distant second is a three that has star potential on offense. A near third is a post defender. Russell satisfies none of the needs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mauro Pedrosa 1,033 Report post Posted June 25, 2015 Sure, but there's nothing else LA could add to make it worthwhile. Look at what it took to get love to Cleveland, the fact they at least have similar value as basketball players except cousins has a longer deal, and then you'll understand why this deal including LA is impossible. We're more likely to get cousins as 5, Vucevic, the LA pick, and a potential future 1 is more than enough to get cousins and vastly superior to anything LA can offer anytime soon. I read that Sacramento would do it for Clarkson, Randle and the #2, but that might be BS Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ColoMagic 4 Report post Posted June 25, 2015 I read that Sacramento would do it for Clarkson, Randle and the #2, but that might be BS How about we get that +#6 and SAC gets Vuc and #5? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mack1085 57 Report post Posted June 25, 2015 It matters. they make think Russell is a star and want him. 3 slots is a lot. I don;t think you understand how big a leap that is in this draft. If we got Russell and then traded pick 5 for somebody like Favors for example, thats a damn nice draft night IMO. I agree. In a vacuum, trading for Vuc for #2 seems like a step back (cue Brand-Curry posters). But if you also trade the #5 for a player like Favors, you can look at it like Vucevic and #5 for Favors and #2. You've still got a young vet with a high ceiling on a decent contract and you've take a step forward in re-balancing our roster so we have some offense in the backcourt and some more defense in the frontcourt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jjgator 164 Report post Posted June 25, 2015 I'm on the edge of my seat right now. If we're giving up Vuc we best get the #2 pick and other stuff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mauro Pedrosa 1,033 Report post Posted June 25, 2015 Favors doesn't excite me one bit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted June 25, 2015 It's not that it doesn't make sense, it's just that Russell just doesn't make sense for us. We need offense, but not from the backcourt. We have a killer distributor and defender at the point...we need a big that can put the ball in the basket to take advantage of his skills. I like Russell but our makeup isn't right for him. We need a four big time, distant second is a three that has star potential on offense. A near third is a post defender. Russell satisfies none of the needs. I'd imagine if we really like Russell that much it would involve trading Payton as well. If you think Russell is that good, you want him to have the ball in his hands as often as possible. A Russell/Payton backcourt diminishes the value of both. Just like it'd be crazy to have a curry-rondo backcourt. Or a Nash-Jason kidd back court. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mack1085 57 Report post Posted June 25, 2015 It's not that it doesn't make sense, it's just that Russell just doesn't make sense for us. We need offense, but not from the backcourt. We have a killer distributor and defender at the point...we need a big that can put the ball in the basket to take advantage of his skills. I like Russell but our makeup isn't right for him. We need a four big time, distant second is a three that has star potential on offense. A near third is a post defender. Russell satisfies none of the needs. You don't think we need offense from the backcourt? We have a PG who can't shoot, and a SG whose primary move is straight to the basket. And if Gordon is on the court at the 3....Without some better shooting in the backcourt, our big men don't have any room to move in the paint. I think you need a good mix of both offense and defense in your backcourt and frontcourt and I think our current roster is out of whack. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mauro Pedrosa 1,033 Report post Posted June 25, 2015 I'd imagine if we really like Russell that much it would involve trading Payton as well. If you think Russell is that good, you want him to have the ball in his hands as often as possible. A Russell/Payton backcourt diminishes the value of both. Just like it'd be crazy to have a curry-rondo backcourt. Or a Nash-Jason kidd back court. Agreed. Russell-Oladipo could be pretty nasty Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TreyMachine 400 Report post Posted June 25, 2015 I'd imagine if we really like Russell that much it would involve trading Payton as well. If you think Russell is that good, you want him to have the ball in his hands as often as possible. A Russell/Payton backcourt diminishes the value of both. Just like it'd be crazy to have a curry-rondo backcourt. Or a Nash-Jason kidd back court. I just don't see us liking Russell or Okafor enough. Ceilings are definitely higher than Vuc, but Floor is much lower. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted June 25, 2015 I read that Sacramento would do it for Clarkson, Randle and the #2, but that might be BS I'd understand that. But then why is Vucevic needed? LA literally has 3 worthwhile assets, #2, randle, and way way down the line Clarkson. If that's not enough to get cousins then a third team needs to get involved to up the ante. The problem is, LA has nothing else to entice us to join the trade. That's why this is impossible. Like during the Dwight trade, la wanted Dwight and had the assets to get Dwight but we didn't value Bynum based on the direction our franchise was moving. So we brought in a third team to obtain more assets that we value for Bynum. There is no other tradable asset that LA has to bring in a third team so this conversation about cousins to LA is moot. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
