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

[D Dub]

and FWIW-- Marcus Smart is better now, tomorrow and for the next decade than DAngelo Russell.  It's been a long time since I've seen someone impact W/L column so effectively as Marcus Smart does.  He just finds ways to win, and we've put a culture around him that values that. 

You think the Lakers are going to be pushing hard for wins this year?  No way.  They lose their draft pick outside of the top 3.  They are already letting their best defenders go (Davis, Johnson) in favor of fools gold type vets.  There is more than one way to tank, and LA prefers the less obvious route that allows them to sell tickets in the meantime.  Boozer, Lin, Hibert, Bass, Lou W...  c'mon now. 

But then again, grass always greener in the yard next door to celticsblog, isn't it? 

 

[gpap]

Lol…..Smart and Scrubs

Sounds like the name of a sitcom.

[D.o.s.]

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?

Your point is fair. the conclusion in the final sentence of the post I replied to is extreme.

[Celtics18]

I think I prefer Smart and Olynyk to Russell and Randle.

Of course, I haven't seen either of the Lakers two young "stars" actually play in an NBA game yet. 

[PhoSita]

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?

The fact that the Lakers don't have their pick this year is a big deal.  Makes a large difference.

As for the Celts' picks, there are major diminishing returns on mid to late 1st round picks, which is what most of the picks the Celts own are likely to turn into.  The Celts just drafted 4 guys in this draft, and they probably won't really get to develop any of them in a significant way this year.  Next year, they have another 4 picks. 

There's just no way they can keep and develop all these picks, unless they have a fire sale on the rest of the roster.  Either way, other teams know that the Celts can't afford to keep all these assets, which means they are going to be very aggressive in low-balling the Celts in every single trade discussion.

[AngryAndIrritable]

Poll: Better to ignore badly worded polls where the OP has made his bias as plain as day, or just wade in regardless?

Oops.

[Celtics18]

"Smart and Scrubs" have almost twice as many votes as Russell and Randle.

Awesome!

[D.o.s.]

It would be interesting to see what people had to say if we were talking about two similar teams that would have no reasonable emotional resonance on this blog.

[cb8883]

Banks 2.0 is a borderline scrub. Randle and Russell are future all stars. Go with talent all day.

[AngryAndIrritable]

It would be interesting to see what people had to say if we were talking about two similar teams that would have no reasonable emotional resonance on this blog.

Reasonable people would pick the team with the guy who had a quantifiable impact in his first season rather than the team with the two players who have (pretty much) yet to play in the NBA.

I can see Russell having a good future in the NBA. Randle strikes me as a one-trick pony.

[Evantime34]

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.

I'd probably take Randle and Russell over Smart and Young/Rozier/Hunter. That being said I like our situation better because the Lakers' have average coaches and front office. I think we are more likely to develop our talent to its fullest. We also have extra picks going forward and the Lakers probably won't.

Ever since the Laker's owner died their front office and coaching has been poor. They lucked out into Russell and I'm not convinced on Randle. Their coach refuses to accept basketball as it currently is, and doesn't shoot 3's. The LaMarcus Aldridge situation was embarrassing, they had to ask for a second meeting because their first went so poorly especially the actual basketball talk. They gave Kobe too big of a contract and it hurt their ability to go after two max free agents this summer.

Going forward I trust the C's to make better moves and get the most out of their talent a lot more than the Lakers

[KG Living Legend]

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.

This is a good answer in favor of the Celtics.

[D.o.s.]

It would be interesting to see what people had to say if we were talking about two similar teams that would have no reasonable emotional resonance on this blog.

Reasonable people would pick the team with the guy who had a quantifiable impact in his first season rather than the team with the two players who have (pretty much) yet to play in the NBA.

I can see Russell having a good future in the NBA. Randle strikes me as a one-trick pony.

I agree with you for the most part. I just think it would be interesting to see a team like Milwaukee contrast with a team like Orlando or Minnesota -- although most posters would probably know the players not quite as well as they know the C's guys, that's washed out by virtue of the Lakers cornerstones having not played nearly any NBA minutes.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Until Russell and Randle get on the floor, they'll be scrubs themselves.

[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?

Your point is fair. the conclusion in the final sentence of the post I replied to is extreme.

I wasn't really being serious. Aside from the Jordan fun, this is going to be a long boring offseason.