Poll: Better to build around Russell and Randle, or Smart and Scrubs

[PhoSita]

The Lakers can't sign anybody these days because they don't have a talented core already in place.  Nobody views Kobe as a star they can win a title with anymore.

Once LA nabs a star or two, in the draft or otherwise, they'll suddenly be a top destination again.

Stars want to play with stars, and they tend to weigh age heavily in the equation.  This is why the Mavs can't get anybody to sign, either, and why David West didn't want to sign with the Celtics back when.  Players want multiple years of contention, not just one shot.  The older your star teammates are, the greater the chance that somebody suffers a major injury and the season is lost.

[Forza Juventus]

I'm not very high on Randle but I do like Russell. I would rather have the team we have because I don't think LA Lakers have their future pick.

[max215]

I think Russell could be something truly special, a perennial all-star and MVP candidate. He could also be a complete bust and be playing overseas in 3 years. The kid has never played a professional basketball game, so it's probably- actually definitely- too early to say. Randle has played one half of one regular season game, so again it's probably too early to say. However, I happen to be of the mind that Randle will flame out quickly and in spectacular fashion. An undersized, offensively minded, defensive liability of a forward is and has not been a recipe for success in the NBA. Smart is the only one of these three guys who has played over one half of an NBA game. Smart is the only one who already has an elite skill (defense) which has translated to the NBA. Smart is the only one who was a starter on a playoff team (granted in the East, but it's still true). I think Smart can develop into a very good player, potentially an all-star in the NBA (I personally think Russell will as well). As of right now, I'm gonna go with the guy who's played more than one half of a basketball game, so I'll take Smart & co. and not think twice about it.

[droopdog7]

Smart. You can already see the difference from one summer league to the next. Keep the development going.

Randle still is a huge question mark. For all we know Mickey could be a better Randle.

Well, at this point the answer has to be Russell and Randle (and not that close).

Never seen Randle or Russell play at this level

Nobody's building around a role player (Smart).  So in this case, the unknown holds more value than the known.

[aingeforthree]

Smart. You can already see the difference from one summer league to the next. Keep the development going.

Randle still is a huge question mark. For all we know Mickey could be a better Randle.

Well, at this point the answer has to be Russell and Randle (and not that close).

Never seen Randle or Russell play at this level

Nobody's building around a role player (Smart).  So in this case, the unknown holds more value than the known.

How do you know that with someone who just turned 21 years old ?

[colincb]

Lakers have signed one major free agent in their history and their current team sucks, therefore they must be better than us.

I would have gone with Okafor who isn't dominant, but will win most of his match-ups. Russell is too high a bust risk given a choice between the two. Randle? I'll happily take Smart. IT over Williams, Zeller over Hibbert, and Kobe's a negative asset at this point. Rest of the team? BOS easily. Draft picks? BOS easily.

[jambr380]

Why is nobody bringing up the fact that we have so many additional first round picks in the coming years while the Lakers don't even have their own? Sure, Smart compared to Russell/Randle sounds bad, but with our expiring contracts, decent young players, and all-out flexibility, I would much rather be a Celtic fan right now than a Laker fan.

The only thing that scares me is LA is LA and they seem to be able to acquire a superstar center at any point in time.

[timpiker]

What a BS question - YOU A LAKER TROLL?

[celticsclay]

this really seems just like trying to bait people into a conflict, particularly with the phrase "scrubs." You want your question to be as neutral as positive in phrasing to get an actual fair response. That obviously is not the intent. probably lock fodder.

The Arbiter has spoken.

I don't know enough about Russell to comment, but I think the traditional thinking is that you can't teach size, right?

That said, Russell and Randle are both unknowns, and I would want to actually watch them play in the NBA before figuring out where I stood on the issue.

Dos do you disagree the wording of the question is ridiculous for a survey? It looks like it has been changed, maybe it is my training in survey methodology but it just seem so worthless to ask heavily loaded questions with a poll.

Do you think violent hoodlums that loot stores after a national emergency should be prosecuted? yes or no?

[JoeyAinge]

Smart and the scrubs cause smart will be better than Russell and Randle . #GangGreenGoggles

[Forza Juventus]

Why is nobody bringing up the fact that we have so many additional first round picks in the coming years while the Lakers don't even have their own? Sure, Smart compared to Russell/Randle sounds bad, but with our expiring contracts, decent young players, and all-out flexibility, I would much rather be a Celtic fan right now than a Laker fan.

The only thing that scares me is LA is LA and they seem to be able to acquire a superstar center at any point in time.

I mentioned that I didn't think they had a future pick.... also I don't see how Randle is a better prospect than Smart but I wasn't that high on Randle. I think Russell will be very good tho.

I'm sick of hearing about flexibility tho.

[Greyman]

Based my vote solely on the fact I would rather be the GM of the Boston Celtics.

[Rosco917]

Naturally...Smart and Company if you're a Celtic fan.

[D Dub]

Not sure how anyone could not see the Lakers as a better situation.  I think the Lakers ALWAYS have an advantage.  They don't need to start with a possible stud in Russell and another potential star in Randle.  All they need is cap space and Kobe gone.   The Lakers are alway 3-5 years from contention.  The C's (and every other team) need complex strategies and a lot of luck.  Lakers need cap space.   The tanking and getting the #2 selection is just unecessary good fortune for the Lakers.

That is why Aldridge and Monroe signed there. Oh wait...  I think this was true in the past but in this day and age of Twitter and the Internet these players can get exposure anywhere to help their brand or whatever if it's important to them.  The Lakers shouldn't even bothered using it as a selling point with Aldridge as it was obviously not important to him.  The Knicks are facing a similar issue striking out in free agency.

The Lakers have not been able to get their man for the last 2 seasons.  I suspect part of the reason is Kobe Bryant.  When he is gone, the Lakers limelight will attract superstars.  We'll see if they have a 20 year drought.  I hope so -- but I doubt it.

Exactly.   You guys should hear the LA sports talk radio around here.  Max & Marcellus especially clamoring on and on about 'never' being able to attract star talent via free agency.  Only through draft or trade, have all their stars come (Magic, Worthy, Kareem, Shaq, Kobe, Pau, Howard, Nash). 

Seems counter intuitive the whole 'good weather' narrative that we're beaten over the head with, but facts is facts. 

[Eja117]

David Lee is like 32 and maybe a couple years removed from an all star game but compared to the great J Randle he's a scrub.  Sully too. And Amir Johnson. They're scrubs next to the guy who needed a wheel chair placard in his car last year.

And Smart was 2nd team all rookie but he's a scrub next to Mr. Ohio State.

Interesting