Lakers vs. Celtics

[alldaboston]

After yesterday's win the Lakers are 7-5 and imo their young prospects are their best players. They are the cause for these wins. This is the opposite of the Celtics, who's victories are based on veterans like Thomas and Bradley, and role players like Crowder and KO. Also, the Lakers have built this team without using their landscape, which has always been an advantage.

So my question is who is the better GM? Ainge of Kupchak? Kupchak seems really underrated to me. He also drafted Bynum #10 overall and then smartly traded him for Howard when he realized the kid had knee issues.

Unlike Ainge, Kupchak went with Scott as his coach and tanked before hiring Walton. Ainge went the opposite route.  So who do you think has done a better job? And which team has a brighter future?

Lakers just did a better job tanking.  Randle, Russell and Ingram are an excellent young core.  We will likely see a similar mini resurgence from Philly as well once they get all their tank rewards healthy and off minutes restrictions.

Boston is a better team than both of them right now.  It's still early in the season.

Tanking, AKA developing young players is a strategy. Ainge decided not to go with that strategy. If we were to tank, players like Brown, Young, Rozier would be getting more minutes and that would be beneficial for their development.

Instead they are now a better team, but to what extent. They have ceiling, and they're not going to be contenders unless 1, they trade for a superstar will keeping their core of players. Two, they get lucky with the Brooklyn picks.

Now could you imagine if they tanked these past three years and they would have brooklyn picks? I think it's up for debate.

That might be true, but we only need 1 other of the Nets picks to be a hit. and now suddenly, we have our own 3 man core of Smart, Brown, and 17/18 nets pick.

The only glaring problem with our strategy as opposed to the Lakers strategy is that we still dont really know what we have with these young guys. The Lakers, they know that Russell is their point guard of the future. They know that Randle is eventually gonna be part of their frontcourt of the future.

What do we know? Is Smart really gonna be the PG of the future of the team? Do we actually know that? If he is, then we should do all that we can to develop him as much as we can. But, what if it's Rozier? Do we put Smart to the side and start developing Rozier? And what about Brown? Is he truly the 3 of the future for us? Are we sure it's not actually gonna be Crowder? Or the '17 Nets pick?

What I like about the Lakers future is that it's very clear: they've got players for most roles already, and those players will be in their future plans. With us, it's a murky future. Are Smart and Brown part of the next great Celtics generation? Or are they merely trade pieces for a guy like Boogie or Blake or George?

So in other words, the Celtics have options whereas the Lakers don't. The Lakers have put all their eggs into this group's basket of success. If those Laker players don't work out, the Lakers are the Orlando Magic. But Boston has a current core that isn't far from contending and has the option of using younger guys to fill holes if they show they deserve minutes.

hmm, that is certainly another way of looking at it. i guess i'm just very impressed at the numbers that their player are putting up, and the fact that they actually look good this year while their young core is the main group that's contributing to their success.

[Witch-King]

I really hate the Lakers, especially now that they're a playoff team and everything. We better not get caught off guard if they make a playoff run...

[number_n9ne]

I think it's important to remember that the Lakers are winning now which means their young core is some what of a finished product where the Celtics, despite trying to win for the last 3 years, are still collecting their young core via future draft picks. I think you would need to wait 2 years for the Celtics to spend the Brooklyn picks and have a similar core of young guys to judge the two against each other. Right now you're comparing Ingram, Randle, Clarkson, and Russell to Smart, Brown, Bkn 17, Bkn 18. That makes judging who has the better young core a little difficult. The Lakers probably won't get high lotto picks the next two years, Celtics will.

[celticsclay]

I think it's important to remember that the Lakers are winning now which means their young core is some what of a finished product where the Celtics, despite trying to win for the last 3 years, are still collecting their young core via future draft picks. I think you would need to wait 2 years for the Celtics to spend the Brooklyn picks and have a similar core of young guys to judge the two against each other. Right now you're comparing Ingram, Randle, Clarkson, and Russell to Smart, Brown, Bkn 17, Bkn 18. That makes judging who has the better young core a little difficult. The Lakers probably won't get high lotto picks the next two years, Celtics will.

Crazy fact. Avery Bradley is only 1.5 years older than Clarkson. Jae Crowder is 2 years older. I think we forget how young some of our key players are sometimes. Only Horford is clearly on the back 9.

[GreenFaith1819]

17-16 is all I care about....and hopefully 18-16 before too long.

[Moranis]

I think it's important to remember that the Lakers are winning now which means their young core is some what of a finished product where the Celtics, despite trying to win for the last 3 years, are still collecting their young core via future draft picks. I think you would need to wait 2 years for the Celtics to spend the Brooklyn picks and have a similar core of young guys to judge the two against each other. Right now you're comparing Ingram, Randle, Clarkson, and Russell to Smart, Brown, Bkn 17, Bkn 18. That makes judging who has the better young core a little difficult. The Lakers probably won't get high lotto picks the next two years, Celtics will.

Crazy fact. Avery Bradley is only 1.5 years older than Clarkson. Jae Crowder is 2 years older. I think we forget how young some of our key players are sometimes. Only Horford is clearly on the back 9.

fair point on Clarkson as he was older when he entered the league, though he is still just 24 as in Nance.  Ingram and Zubac are 19, Russell is 20, and Randle is 22.  Ingram, Russell, and Randle are the "stars" and they are all very young. 

To the original post in this chain, I think it is ridiculous to call the Lakers a finished product.  Just plain silly. 

[kraidstar]

Russell, Clarkson, Randle, Ingram... lots of potential there.

But who among that bunch is projected to be a true 2-way star? Who is going to be playing elite defense in crunch time when they're facing other talented teams in the playoffs?

The Lakers could easily become the Milwaukee Bucks from 15 years ago, who had Ray Allen, Glenn Robinson, and Sam Cassell, all in their primes. All very good players, but none of them were good defenders, and that kept them from true contention.