Russell to the Wolves?

[WildWolf2813]

No and here's why:

If this team intends on sucking another year, there will be better PG's available than D'Angelo Russell come 2017.

Also, Russell as your starting PG = No playoffs next year guaranteed.

Lastly, I don't think this team should be making trades where now it becomes impossible to fill the holes we'll create in order to get Russell.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

No and here's why:

If this team intends on sucking another year, there will be better PG's available than D'Angelo Russell come 2017.

Also, Russell as your starting PG = No playoffs next year guaranteed.

Lastly, I don't think this team should be making trades where now it becomes impossible to fill the holes we'll create in order to get Russell.

How do we create a roster hole getting Russell if we are trading a pick who has never played a game for the franchise?

[WildWolf2813]

No and here's why:

If this team intends on sucking another year, there will be better PG's available than D'Angelo Russell come 2017.

Also, Russell as your starting PG = No playoffs next year guaranteed.

Lastly, I don't think this team should be making trades where now it becomes impossible to fill the holes we'll create in order to get Russell.

How do we create a roster hole getting Russell if we are trading a pick who has never played a game for the franchise?

Because LA isn't just gonna take #5 for Russell. They'll want more. On top of that, if you're making a move like that, you're not taking Russell to sit him behind Rubio. All while you're doing this, shooting didn't get addressed. Adding another big didn't get addressed. With the #5 pick, Minnesota should be looking to solve a major issue with this team that would otherwise cost a lot of money in free agency. Ex. Drafting Hield saves Minnesota $15 mil a year in money that we'd need to go after Crabbe or Fournier. Drafting Bender may save us $$$ we'd need to go after a stretch four. Trading for Russell now means the only way to possible address either hole is to trade Rubio and good luck getting what you need in exchange for Ricky.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

No and here's why:

If this team intends on sucking another year, there will be better PG's available than D'Angelo Russell come 2017.

Also, Russell as your starting PG = No playoffs next year guaranteed.

Lastly, I don't think this team should be making trades where now it becomes impossible to fill the holes we'll create in order to get Russell.

How do we create a roster hole getting Russell if we are trading a pick who has never played a game for the franchise?

Because LA isn't just gonna take #5 for Russell. They'll want more. On top of that, if you're making a move like that, you're not taking Russell to sit him behind Rubio. All while you're doing this, shooting didn't get addressed. Adding another big didn't get addressed. With the #5 pick, Minnesota should be looking to solve a major issue with this team that would otherwise cost a lot of money in free agency. Ex. Drafting Hield saves Minnesota $15 mil a year in money that we'd need to go after Crabbe or Fournier. Drafting Bender may save us $$$ we'd need to go after a stretch four. Trading for Russell now means the only way to possible address either hole is to trade Rubio and good luck getting what you need in exchange for Ricky.

I don't think anyone here is going to offer more than #5 for Russell (except maybe bleedspeed who hasn't weighed in yet on the guy he coveted last year). And Russell was a 41% 3-point shooter in college and over 39% the last half of his rookie year, so he does a lot to help out in the shooting area. If we made a deal like this, I think Rubio, Russell and Zach would provide a deadly rotation at the 1 and 2. I don't know who starts, but perhaps Ricky and Russell start in the backcourt with Zach as 6th man.

[Monster]

Back to the topic. I like Murray at #5 over Dunn. I like Dunn over Russell. Let's not be the philanthropists in the Lakers return to prominence.

Cool, I know you have jumped on the Murray train recently, and I'm also intrigued by him...especially as a shooter. But after looking at the comparative freshmen stats for Russell and Murray, Russell looks to me like the more complete prospect. They're similar shooters, but Russell was the superior rebounder and distributor. And Russell has proven that his 3-point shooting translates to the pro level, as he shot over 39% after the all star break.

Since you prefer Murray to Russell, sell me on that comparison.

Remember what programs they came from in college. It isn't so easy to stand out at Kentucky, as our reigning rookie of the year showed. Russell didn't have a lot of help at Ohio State, so I think it's real hard to compare their college seasons and come up with decent conclusions.

I listen to a ton of NBA talk on a wide variety of radio talk shows. Some of the things I'm hearing from reputable pundits about Murray are just flat out exciting. There are a few who would take him over both Simmons and Ingram. Many talk glowingly about his basketball skills, some that haven't been fully on display at Kentucky. He s not a great athlete, but a lot of the games' best players aren't. He's just a 19 year old kid who has the savvy and skills to become a terrific NBA player. I'd be beyond thrilled to add him to our core. I know this isn't a great summation, but gotta head to church now. I'd like to hear what others like/don't like about him.

That's a great comparison. I still think I may give Russell an advantage of his College game because of his passing plus he is bigger but both guys are not overwhelming athletes (but better than they may get credit for) and shooting and feel for the game are big strengths of their games.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

No and here's why:

If this team intends on sucking another year, there will be better PG's available than D'Angelo Russell come 2017.

Also, Russell as your starting PG = No playoffs next year guaranteed.

Lastly, I don't think this team should be making trades where now it becomes impossible to fill the holes we'll create in order to get Russell.

How do we create a roster hole getting Russell if we are trading a pick who has never played a game for the franchise?

Because LA isn't just gonna take #5 for Russell. They'll want more. On top of that, if you're making a move like that, you're not taking Russell to sit him behind Rubio. All while you're doing this, shooting didn't get addressed. Adding another big didn't get addressed. With the #5 pick, Minnesota should be looking to solve a major issue with this team that would otherwise cost a lot of money in free agency. Ex. Drafting Hield saves Minnesota $15 mil a year in money that we'd need to go after Crabbe or Fournier. Drafting Bender may save us $$$ we'd need to go after a stretch four. Trading for Russell now means the only way to possible address either hole is to trade Rubio and good luck getting what you need in exchange for Ricky.

More shooting is solved with Russell. He shot 39% from 3 after the all-star break and was a 40% 3pt shooter in college. He's 6'5 and can play either guard spot. That's more value than what Hield can bring to a team. The article doesn't mention anything about other pieces needing to get the job done. It says Russell for 5 because of his issues with teammates. The cap is going up 30 million dollars in the next two years. Money to sign role players is not an issue. I don't see most of your concerns you bring up as actual problems not able to be addressed. Russell addresses shooting issues and we'll have enough money this summer to add a big to the frontcourt.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Back to the topic. I like Murray at #5 over Dunn. I like Dunn over Russell. Let's not be the philanthropists in the Lakers return to prominence.

Cool, I know you have jumped on the Murray train recently, and I'm also intrigued by him...especially as a shooter. But after looking at the comparative freshmen stats for Russell and Murray, Russell looks to me like the more complete prospect. They're similar shooters, but Russell was the superior rebounder and distributor. And Russell has proven that his 3-point shooting translates to the pro level, as he shot over 39% after the all star break.

Since you prefer Murray to Russell, sell me on that comparison.

Well, Russell was also asked to do a lot more on-ball than Murray was and I think that has to play into how you view their freshman seasons. Russell was no doubt very impressive in his ability to run offense and facilitate at a high level for Ohio State, but he did not have a point guard that could handle that role -- like Tyler Ulis -- playing next to him. Murray, however, was in a situation where his on-ball playmaking wasn't demanded from him by Calipari. Instead, he was the secondary handler, but used more so coming off screens and curling/fading in order to get his shot off. So, in this regard, I believe Russell is the superior passer, but we were not able to see the full extent of Murray's abilities there.

As for his shooting, I think Murray's better here. Russell isn't a 3P-shooting slouch by any means, but Murray was a flat out flamethrower. Russell hit 41.1% of his 6.6 3PA per game and 95 total. Murray hit 40.8% of his 7.7 3PA per game and 113 total. Not only did Murray out-volume shoot Russell, but he almost made more threes than a freshman Steph Curry at Davidson (122). It would have been interesting how close he would have got had he not struggled the first month or two of the season. I think he had a shot at getting that record. Oh, and Murray was downright deadly coming off screens this year. This is an excerpt from DraftExpress' profile on him and it's what I saw from him this season.

"Murray was magnificent as a spot-up shooter for Kentucky, but was particularly impressive coming off screens, as no player in college basketball even came close to delivering the accuracy he did (42/75, 56%) running off picks this season. He does an incredible job of moving off the ball with exquisite timing, and then catching, setting his feet and getting his shot off in one quick and smooth motion, with tremendous balance and body control. He is capable of contorting his body and throwing the ball in the basket from the most awkward of angles, with phenomenal touch and feel."

Murray's shot is going to translate. That much is pretty clear, IMO.

I also like that Murray's a bit stockier in build and stronger than Russell. Murray's 207 lbs and looks it. Russell was 194 lbs coming out and strength wasn't necessarily a strength. I believe it helps him absorb contact at the rim and finish as he did just that 65% of the time. In comparison, Russell shot a respectable 62% at the rim, but wasn't as good with his off-hand, which was a legitimate gripe with him coming out. Murray doesn't have that concern.

It's an interesting comparison of prospects, but for me, Murray comes out on top. I'd still be satisfied with a trade for Russell, but I like the Kentucky product more.

[bleedspeed]

Russell >> > Murray. I would do it with our hesitation. Russell was a better college player and will be a better pro. He woudl pretty solid after the All-star break and he would be a top 3 pick this draft for sure. He also has a better shot at being a 2 way player due to length and is a better passer then Murray.

[kekgeek]

I'm torn on this one, I think I would go Murray=Russell > Dunn. This is so close to me I like the idea no matter who is out there in theory rubio/Russell/lavine all combinations can work. I like to have another playmaker dribbler, on the court. But I think Murray can provide that and he is better off the ball. It is a tie in terms of talent I would want so I would not do the trade if Russell is available

[Crazysauce]

I also am really torn on it. I think the opposite of wildwolf in that i think it may be possible to extract a 2nd rounder from la since russells reputation. I personally think the ordeal was overblown but as far as trade value i think it knocks him down a notch.

I feel russell is the much better ball handler then any of the hield dunn and murray triumvirate. He also can shoot, maybe not quite the level as hield and murray but definitely up there. To me i lean towards doing the deal as looks like he has good relationship with towns and i feel he is the most talented of them all. Also fit wise is really nice as he is more of a pv than lavine but i definitely think you can play him at sg as well. Having someone to take some of the minutes when rubio comes out would be nice.

I am on the fence though as some of you have made some good points to not do it.