I wonder for these workouts if they bring in any of the current players for situations like Lonzo because he's more of a distributor. Try to run sets, let him operate and make decisions on his own.
I'm curious if any of the Lakers players joined in on the dinner with Lonzo, the way they did last year with Ingram...
Interesting scenario, but who would we be getting at 5 and 10? If we did this the last 2 seasons assuming the draft order remained the same (which is unlikely I know) we'd have gotten Hezonja and Winslow over Russ, and Dunn and Maker over Ingram. I wouldn't redo either scenario, one possibly great, possibly franchise player is better than 2 good to decent players. That said, at least in the 2015 draft, with hindsight we could have also ended up with Myles Turner and Devin Booker in the same scenario. It's a crap shoot as always, but I still take the best player I feel I can get vs a couple players later on. Just my opinion.
I wouldn't do it either. If we're going to trade the pick I'd honestly rather use it to bring in George or Butler than 2 more young guys who will need a few years to develop.
if for some god awful reason they trade with SAC and acquire the #5 and #10 picks then i hope they take fox and markkanen but still, i would hate to see the pick traded. just keep it and draft ball or fox
right: who says the lakers use both picks if they made that trade. maybe they take the best of who's left out of fultz/ball/fox/jackson/tatum (seems to be the consensus top five) at 5, then use 10 in trade for veteran (perhaps george). if you're not 100% sold on a single player at #2, this would totally be the play.
If top 5 is fultz, ball, fox, Tatum, Jackson, then we get one of them. And another top ten player? Sounds good.
Who's going down to watch the Lonzo workout today? Hit me up .... we can get a bite and couple beers after to discuss.
We have a very competent scouting department. I'm confident that they'd be locked into one player at #2 by draft night. Trading down 3 spots is not a viable option.
I think it's viable in a similar way that's it's viable we sign a big name FA this summer. I don't think it's at all likely and it's just a slow news cycle in sports right now. I don't know any precedent off the top of my head for a team trading two Top 10 picks for a Top 3 pick. It's not a sound move by that team and I think people are only really considering it because Vlade and the Kings are that bad a franchise. Last year though, the Kings moved down in the draft from 8 to 13 and 28. If that's our baseline, we're probably not on the same page going from 2 to 5 and 10. In 2015 the Wizards gave up 19 and two 2nds to move up to 15. In 2014 the Bulls traded 16, 19, and a 2nd to move up to 11. In 2014 the Magic traded 12, a future 1st, and a 2nd to move up to 10. In 2013 the Jazz traded 14 and 21 to move up to 9. In 2013 the C Bags traded 16 and two 2nds to move up to 13. In 2013 the Jazz traded a 2nd round pick and some cash to go to 27. (I just posted this because all it took was #46 and some cash to buy Rudy Gobert) The valuation to me doesn't add up, but hey if Sacramento wants to trade to #2 to get De'Aaron Fox for some reason, then I'd pull the trigger. If that happens I'm thinking... We take whoever is left of Fultz, Ball, Jackson, or Tatum and then scoop up one of the big Collins at 10. I know people like Zubac, but we might find a better big man prospect in the teens of this draft. That being said, I don't necessarily want two more picks this year. I'd prefer a future pick if we trade down.
i like this idea if they were to trade the #2 pick i think the #10 pick could fetch a pretty decent return. although i'm not sure indy would be willing to unload PG for anything lower than a top 5 pick