darthska
Staff member
- 46,542
- 30,857
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
Shoot, I forgot to mention the VERY REAL possibility that we get the pick... and Love goes to an actual PRESENT contender.Yes, there's uncertainty in everything. But a lottery pick has the chance to bring things that no other player can - not just in terms of talent, but the money and roster building situations.- There's an uncertainty in trading our pick for Love... who could walk? That's bad... because that pick is a nice, young athlete and Love could could bounce? Sooo... uncertainty = bad? Cool, cool. I get that. Makes sense. We tank and get a top pick and land Love... and that top pick becomes Sebastian Telfair/Kwame Brown, and Love demands a trade to a contender, or walks at the end of the 2-3 year deal we sign him for. That... so that would be bad, right? And it's absolutely possible, right? And it's also possible that we get a top pick and land Love and that pick goes all Kobe/Lebron on the league, and him and Love look attractive enough to lure in a Rondo or even Durant and rip the entire National Basketball Association a new one; that's also a possibility. So this 'tank and get a top pick and then land Love' could end up terrible, could end up decent, could end up awesome; lots of uncertainty, no? And 'uncertainty = bad' still? Or is is it just that uncertainty of 'trading that pick for Love when he COULD walk' is bad?
Love + pick brings a much higher chance of success, due to more opportunities on the roster building side.
The pick could burn out and those opportunities go out the window. But those things are irreplaceable, not things you can get on the FA market etc. So that's why the Lakers should be willing to play the risks of the pick panning out vs. the risks of giving it up for a star and dealing with the cap limitations etc.
TELL me Love to LA is as blatanelty obvious as Dwight to LA was. Please. Tell me that.